sample rationale for thesis proposal

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write the Rationale of the Study in Research (Examples)

What is the Rationale of the Study?

The rationale of the study is the justification for taking on a given study. It explains the reason the study was conducted or should be conducted. This means the study rationale should explain to the reader or examiner why the study is/was necessary. It is also sometimes called the “purpose” or “justification” of a study. While this is not difficult to grasp in itself, you might wonder how the rationale of the study is different from your research question or from the statement of the problem of your study, and how it fits into the rest of your thesis or research paper. 

The rationale of the study links the background of the study to your specific research question and justifies the need for the latter on the basis of the former. In brief, you first provide and discuss existing data on the topic, and then you tell the reader, based on the background evidence you just presented, where you identified gaps or issues and why you think it is important to address those. The problem statement, lastly, is the formulation of the specific research question you choose to investigate, following logically from your rationale, and the approach you are planning to use to do that.

Table of Contents:

How to write a rationale for a research paper , how do you justify the need for a research study.

• Study Rationale Example: Where Does It Go In Your Paper?

The basis for writing a research rationale is preliminary data or a clear description of an observation. If you are doing basic/theoretical research, then a literature review will help you identify gaps in current knowledge. In applied/practical research, you base your rationale on an existing issue with a certain process (e.g., vaccine proof registration) or practice (e.g., patient treatment) that is well documented and needs to be addressed. By presenting the reader with earlier evidence or observations, you can (and have to) convince them that you are not just repeating what other people have already done or said and that your ideas are not coming out of thin air. 

Once you have explained where you are coming from, you should justify the need for doing additional research–this is essentially the rationale of your study. Finally, when you have convinced the reader of the purpose of your work, you can end your introduction section with the statement of the problem of your research that contains clear aims and objectives and also briefly describes (and justifies) your methodological approach. 

When is the Rationale for Research Written?

The author can present the study rationale both before and after the research is conducted. 

• Before conducting research : The study rationale is a central component of the research proposal . It represents the plan of your work, constructed before the study is actually executed.
• Once research has been conducted : After the study is completed, the rationale is presented in a research article or  PhD dissertation  to explain why you focused on this specific research question. When writing the study rationale for this purpose, the author should link the rationale of the research to the aims and outcomes of the study.

What to Include in the Study Rationale

Although every study rationale is different and discusses different specific elements of a study’s method or approach, there are some elements that should be included to write a good rationale. Make sure to touch on the following:

• A summary of conclusions from your review of the relevant literature
• What is currently unknown (gaps in knowledge)
• Inconclusive or contested results  from previous studies on the same or similar topic
• The necessity to improve or build on previous research, such as to improve methodology or utilize newer techniques and/or technologies

There are different types of limitations that you can use to justify the need for your study. In applied/practical research, the justification for investigating something is always that an existing process/practice has a problem or is not satisfactory. Let’s say, for example, that people in a certain country/city/community commonly complain about hospital care on weekends (not enough staff, not enough attention, no decisions being made), but you looked into it and realized that nobody ever investigated whether these perceived problems are actually based on objective shortages/non-availabilities of care or whether the lower numbers of patients who are treated during weekends are commensurate with the provided services.

In this case, “lack of data” is your justification for digging deeper into the problem. Or, if it is obvious that there is a shortage of staff and provided services on weekends, you could decide to investigate which of the usual procedures are skipped during weekends as a result and what the negative consequences are. 

In basic/theoretical research, lack of knowledge is of course a common and accepted justification for additional research—but make sure that it is not your only motivation. “Nobody has ever done this” is only a convincing reason for a study if you explain to the reader why you think we should know more about this specific phenomenon. If there is earlier research but you think it has limitations, then those can usually be classified into “methodological”, “contextual”, and “conceptual” limitations. To identify such limitations, you can ask specific questions and let those questions guide you when you explain to the reader why your study was necessary:

Methodological limitations

• Did earlier studies try but failed to measure/identify a specific phenomenon?
• Was earlier research based on incorrect conceptualizations of variables?
• Were earlier studies based on questionable operationalizations of key concepts?
• Did earlier studies use questionable or inappropriate research designs?

Contextual limitations

• Have recent changes in the studied problem made previous studies irrelevant?
• Are you studying a new/particular context that previous findings do not apply to?

Conceptual limitations

• Do previous findings only make sense within a specific framework or ideology?

Study Rationale Examples

Let’s look at an example from one of our earlier articles on the statement of the problem to clarify how your rationale fits into your introduction section. This is a very short introduction for a practical research study on the challenges of online learning. Your introduction might be much longer (especially the context/background section), and this example does not contain any sources (which you will have to provide for all claims you make and all earlier studies you cite)—but please pay attention to how the background presentation , rationale, and problem statement blend into each other in a logical way so that the reader can follow and has no reason to question your motivation or the foundation of your research.

Background presentation

Since the beginning of the Covid pandemic, most educational institutions around the world have transitioned to a fully online study model, at least during peak times of infections and social distancing measures. This transition has not been easy and even two years into the pandemic, problems with online teaching and studying persist (reference needed) . 

While the increasing gap between those with access to technology and equipment and those without access has been determined to be one of the main challenges (reference needed) , others claim that online learning offers more opportunities for many students by breaking down barriers of location and distance (reference needed) .  

Rationale of the study

Since teachers and students cannot wait for circumstances to go back to normal, the measures that schools and universities have implemented during the last two years, their advantages and disadvantages, and the impact of those measures on students’ progress, satisfaction, and well-being need to be understood so that improvements can be made and demographics that have been left behind can receive the support they need as soon as possible.

Statement of the problem

To identify what changes in the learning environment were considered the most challenging and how those changes relate to a variety of student outcome measures, we conducted surveys and interviews among teachers and students at ten institutions of higher education in four different major cities, two in the US (New York and Chicago), one in South Korea (Seoul), and one in the UK (London). Responses were analyzed with a focus on different student demographics and how they might have been affected differently by the current situation.

How long is a study rationale?

In a research article bound for journal publication, your rationale should not be longer than a few sentences (no longer than one brief paragraph). A  dissertation or thesis  usually allows for a longer description; depending on the length and nature of your document, this could be up to a couple of paragraphs in length. A completely novel or unconventional approach might warrant a longer and more detailed justification than an approach that slightly deviates from well-established methods and approaches.

Consider Using Professional Academic Editing Services

Now that you know how to write the rationale of the study for a research proposal or paper, you should make use of our free AI grammar checker , Wordvice AI, or receive professional academic proofreading services from Wordvice, including research paper editing services and manuscript editing services to polish your submitted research documents.

You can also find many more articles, for example on writing the other parts of your research paper , on choosing a title , or on making sure you understand and adhere to the author instructions before you submit to a journal, on the Wordvice academic resources pages.

How to Write the Rationale for a Research Paper

• Research Process
• Peer Review

A research rationale answers the big SO WHAT? that every adviser, peer reviewer, and editor has in mind when they critique your work. A compelling research rationale increases the chances of your paper being published or your grant proposal being funded. In this article, we look at the purpose of a research rationale, its components and key characteristics, and how to create an effective research rationale.

Updated on September 19, 2022

The rationale for your research is the reason why you decided to conduct the study in the first place. The motivation for asking the question. The knowledge gap. This is often the most significant part of your publication. It justifies the study's purpose, novelty, and significance for science or society. It's a critical part of standard research articles as well as funding proposals.

Essentially, the research rationale answers the big SO WHAT? that every (good) adviser, peer reviewer, and editor has in mind when they critique your work.

A compelling research rationale increases the chances of your paper being published or your grant proposal being funded. In this article, we look at:

• the purpose of a research rationale
• its components and key characteristics
• how to create an effective research rationale

What is a research rationale?

Think of a research rationale as a set of reasons that explain why a study is necessary and important based on its background. It's also known as the justification of the study, rationale, or thesis statement.

Essentially, you want to convince your reader that you're not reciting what other people have already said and that your opinion hasn't appeared out of thin air. You've done the background reading and identified a knowledge gap that this rationale now explains.

A research rationale is usually written toward the end of the introduction. You'll see this section clearly in high-impact-factor international journals like Nature and Science. At the end of the introduction there's always a phrase that begins with something like, "here we show..." or "in this paper we show..." This text is part of a logical sequence of information, typically (but not necessarily) provided in this order:

Here's an example from a study by Cataldo et al. (2021) on the impact of social media on teenagers' lives.

Note how the research background, gap, rationale, and objectives logically blend into each other.

The authors chose to put the research aims before the rationale. This is not a problem though. They still achieve a logical sequence. This helps the reader follow their thinking and convinces them about their research's foundation.

Elements of a research rationale

We saw that the research rationale follows logically from the research background and literature review/observation and leads into your study's aims and objectives.

This might sound somewhat abstract. A helpful way to formulate a research rationale is to answer the question, “Why is this study necessary and important?”

Generally, that something has never been done before should not be your only motivation. Use it only If you can give the reader valid evidence why we should learn more about this specific phenomenon.

A well-written introduction covers three key elements:

• What's the background to the research?
• What has been done before (information relevant to this particular study, but NOT a literature review)?
• Research rationale

Now, let's see how you might answer the question.

1. This study complements scientific knowledge and understanding

Discuss the shortcomings of previous studies and explain how'll correct them. Your short review can identify:

• Methodological limitations . The methodology (research design, research approach or sampling) employed in previous works is somewhat flawed.

Example : Here , the authors claim that previous studies have failed to explore the role of apathy “as a predictor of functional decline in healthy older adults” (Burhan et al., 2021). At the same time, we know a lot about other age-related neuropsychiatric disorders, like depression.

Their study is necessary, then, “to increase our understanding of the cognitive, clinical, and neural correlates of apathy and deconstruct its underlying mechanisms.” (Burhan et al., 2021).

• Contextual limitations . External factors have changed and this has minimized or removed the relevance of previous research.

Example : You want to do an empirical study to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of tourists visiting Sicily. Previous studies might have measured tourism determinants in Sicily, but they preceded COVID-19.

• Conceptual limitations . Previous studies are too bound to a specific ideology or a theoretical framework.

Example : The work of English novelist E. M. Forster has been extensively researched for its social, political, and aesthetic dimensions. After the 1990s, younger scholars wanted to read his novels as an example of gay fiction. They justified the need to do so based on previous studies' reliance on homophobic ideology.

This kind of rationale is most common in basic/theoretical research.

2. This study can help solve a specific problem

Here, you base your rationale on a process that has a problem or is not satisfactory.

For example, patients complain about low-quality hospital care on weekends (staff shortages, inadequate attention, etc.). No one has looked into this (there is a lack of data). So, you explore if the reported problems are true and what can be done to address them. This is a knowledge gap.

Or you set out to explore a specific practice. You might want to study the pros and cons of several entry strategies into the Japanese food market.

It's vital to explain the problem in detail and stress the practical benefits of its solution. In the first example, the practical implications are recommendations to improve healthcare provision.

In the second example, the impact of your research is to inform the decision-making of businesses wanting to enter the Japanese food market.

This kind of rationale is more common in applied/practical research.

3. You're the best person to conduct this study

It's a bonus if you can show that you're uniquely positioned to deliver this study, especially if you're writing a funding proposal .

For an anthropologist wanting to explore gender norms in Ethiopia, this could be that they speak Amharic (Ethiopia's official language) and have already lived in the country for a few years (ethnographic experience).

Or if you want to conduct an interdisciplinary research project, consider partnering up with collaborators whose expertise complements your own. Scientists from different fields might bring different skills and a fresh perspective or have access to the latest tech and equipment. Teaming up with reputable collaborators justifies the need for a study by increasing its credibility and likely impact.

When is the research rationale written?

You can write your research rationale before, or after, conducting the study.

In the first case, when you might have a new research idea, and you're applying for funding to implement it.

Or you're preparing a call for papers for a journal special issue or a conference. Here , for instance, the authors seek to collect studies on the impact of apathy on age-related neuropsychiatric disorders.

In the second case, you have completed the study and are writing a research paper for publication. Looking back, you explain why you did the study in question and how it worked out.

Although the research rationale is part of the introduction, it's best to write it at the end. Stand back from your study and look at it in the big picture. At this point, it's easier to convince your reader why your study was both necessary and important.

How long should a research rationale be?

The length of the research rationale is not fixed. Ideally, this will be determined by the guidelines (of your journal, sponsor etc.).

The prestigious journal Nature , for instance, calls for articles to be no more than 6 or 8 pages, depending on the content. The introduction should be around 200 words, and, as mentioned, two to three sentences serve as a brief account of the background and rationale of the study, and come at the end of the introduction.

If you're not provided guidelines, consider these factors:

• Research document : In a thesis or book-length study, the research rationale will be longer than in a journal article. For example, the background and rationale of this book exploring the collective memory of World War I cover more than ten pages.
• Research question : Research into a new sub-field may call for a longer or more detailed justification than a study that plugs a gap in literature.

Which verb tenses to use in the research rationale?

It's best to use the present tense. Though in a research proposal, the research rationale is likely written in the future tense, as you're describing the intended or expected outcomes of the research project (the gaps it will fill, the problems it will solve).

Example of a research rationale

Research question : What are the teachers' perceptions of how a sense of European identity is developed and what underlies such perceptions?

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3(2), 77-101.

Burhan, A.M., Yang, J., & Inagawa, T. (2021). Impact of apathy on aging and age-related neuropsychiatric disorders. Research Topic. Frontiers in Psychiatry

Cataldo, I., Lepri, B., Neoh, M. J. Y., & Esposito, G. (2021). Social media usage and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence: A review. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 11.

CiCe Jean Monnet Network (2017). Guidelines for citizenship education in school: Identities and European citizenship children's identity and citizenship in Europe.

Cohen, l, Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education . Eighth edition. London: Routledge.

de Prat, R. C. (2013). Euroscepticism, Europhobia and Eurocriticism: The radical parties of the right and left “vis-à-vis” the European Union P.I.E-Peter Lang S.A., Éditions Scientifiques Internationales.

European Commission. (2017). Eurydice Brief: Citizenship education at school in Europe.

Polyakova, A., & Fligstein, N. (2016). Is European integration causing Europe to become more nationalist? Evidence from the 2007–9 financial crisis. Journal of European Public Policy , 23(1), 60-83.

Winter, J. (2014). Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

Community Blog

Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.

How do you Write the Rationale for Research?

• By DiscoverPhDs
• October 21, 2020

What is the Rationale of Research?

The term rationale of research means the reason for performing the research study in question. In writing your rational you should able to convey why there was a need for your study to be carried out. It’s an important part of your research paper that should explain how your research was novel and explain why it was significant; this helps the reader understand why your research question needed to be addressed in your research paper, term paper or other research report.

The rationale for research is also sometimes referred to as the justification for the study. When writing your rational, first begin by introducing and explaining what other researchers have published on within your research field.

Having explained the work of previous literature and prior research, include discussion about where the gaps in knowledge are in your field. Use these to define potential research questions that need answering and explain the importance of addressing these unanswered questions.

The rationale conveys to the reader of your publication exactly why your research topic was needed and why it was significant . Having defined your research rationale, you would then go on to define your hypothesis and your research objectives.

Final Comments

Defining the rationale research, is a key part of the research process and academic writing in any research project. You use this in your research paper to firstly explain the research problem within your dissertation topic. This gives you the research justification you need to define your research question and what the expected outcomes may be.

Thinking about applying to a PhD? Then don’t miss out on these 4 tips on how to best prepare your application.

This post gives you the best questions to ask at a PhD interview, to help you work out if your potential supervisor and lab is a good fit for you.

The term rationale of research means the reason for performing the research study in question.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Browse PhDs Now

Starting your PhD can feel like a daunting, exciting and special time. They’ll be so much to think about – here are a few tips to help you get started.

Multistage sampling is a more complex form of cluster sampling for obtaining sample populations. Learn their pros and cons and how to undertake them.

Dr Ilesanmi has a PhD in Applied Biochemistry from the Federal University of Technology Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria. He is now a lecturer in the Department of Biochemistry at the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State, Nigeria.

Ryan is in the final write up stages of his PhD at the University of Southampton. His research is on understanding narrative structure, media specificity and genre in transmedia storytelling.

Join Thousands of Students

Setting Rationale in Research: Cracking the code for excelling at research

Knowledge and curiosity lays the foundation of scientific progress. The quest for knowledge has always been a timeless endeavor. Scholars seek reasons to explain the phenomena they observe, paving way for development of research. Every investigation should offer clarity and a well-defined rationale in research is a cornerstone upon which the entire study can be built.

Research rationale is the heartbeat of every academic pursuit as it guides the researchers to unlock the untouched areas of their field. Additionally, it illuminates the gaps in the existing knowledge, and identifies the potential contributions that the study aims to make.

Table of Contents

What Is Research Rationale and When Is It Written

Research rationale is the “why” behind every academic research. It not only frames the study but also outlines its objectives , questions, and expected outcomes. Additionally, it helps to identify the potential limitations of the study . It serves as a lighthouse for researchers that guides through data collection and analysis, ensuring their efforts remain focused and purposeful. Typically, a rationale is written at the beginning of the research proposal or research paper . It is an essential component of the introduction section and provides the foundation for the entire study. Furthermore, it provides a clear understanding of the purpose and significance of the research to the readers before delving into the specific details of the study. In some cases, the rationale is written before the methodology, data analysis, and other sections. Also, it serves as the justification for the research, and how it contributes to the field. Defining a research rationale can help a researcher in following ways:

1. Justification of a Research Problem

• Research rationale helps to understand the essence of a research problem.
• It designs the right approach to solve a problem. This aspect is particularly important for applied research, where the outcomes can have real-world relevance and impact.
• Also, it explains why the study is worth conducting and why resources should be allocated to pursue it.
• Additionally, it guides a researcher to highlight the benefits and implications of a strategy.

2. Elimination of Literature Gap

• Research rationale helps to ideate new topics which are less addressed.
• Additionally, it offers fresh perspectives on existing research and discusses the shortcomings in previous studies.
• It shows that your study aims to contribute to filling these gaps and advancing the field’s understanding.

3. Originality and Novelty

• The rationale highlights the unique aspects of your research and how it differs from previous studies.
• Furthermore, it explains why your research adds something new to the field and how it expands upon existing knowledge.
• It highlights how your findings might contribute to a better understanding of a particular issue or problem and potentially lead to positive changes.
• Besides these benefits, it provides a personal motivation to the researchers. In some cases, researchers might have personal experiences or interests that drive their desire to investigate a particular topic.

4. An Increase in Chances of Funding

• It is essential to convince funding agencies , supervisors, or reviewers, that a research is worth pursuing.
• Therefore, a good rationale can get your research approved for funding and increases your chances of getting published in journals; as it addresses the potential knowledge gap in existing research.

Overall, research rationale is essential for providing a clear and convincing argument for the value and importance of your research study, setting the stage for the rest of the research proposal or manuscript. Furthermore, it helps establish the context for your work and enables others to understand the purpose and potential impact of your research.

5 Key Elements of a Research Rationale

Research rationale must include certain components which make it more impactful. Here are the key elements of a research rationale:

By incorporating these elements, you provide a strong and convincing case for the legitimacy of your research, which is essential for gaining support and approval from academic institutions, funding agencies, or other stakeholders.

How to Write a Rationale in Research

Writing a rationale requires careful consideration of the reasons for conducting the study. It is usually written in the present tense.

Here are some steps to guide you through the process of writing a research rationale:

After writing the initial draft, it is essential to review and revise the research rationale to ensure that it effectively communicates the purpose of your research. The research rationale should be persuasive and compelling, convincing readers that your study is worthwhile and deserves their attention.

How Long Should a Research Rationale be?

Although there is no pre-defined length for a rationale in research, its length may vary depending on the specific requirements of the research project. It also depends on the academic institution or organization, and the guidelines set by the research advisor or funding agency. In general, a research rationale is usually a concise and focused document.

Typically, it ranges from a few paragraphs to a few pages, but it is usually recommended to keep it as crisp as possible while ensuring all the essential elements are adequately covered. The length of a research rationale can be roughly as follows:

1. For Research Proposal:

A. Around 1 to 3 pages

B. Ensure clear and comprehensive explanation of the research question, its significance, literature review , and methodological approach.

2. Thesis or Dissertation:

A. Around 3 to 5 pages

B. Ensure an extensive coverage of the literature review, theoretical framework, and research objectives to provide a robust justification for the study.

3. Journal Article:

A. Usually concise. Ranges from few paragraphs to one page

B. The research rationale is typically included as part of the introduction section

However, remember that the quality and content of the research rationale are more important than its length. The reasons for conducting the research should be well-structured, clear, and persuasive when presented. Always adhere to the specific institution or publication guidelines.

Example of a Research Rationale

In conclusion, the research rationale serves as the cornerstone of a well-designed and successful research project. It ensures that research efforts are focused, meaningful, and ethically sound. Additionally, it provides a comprehensive and logical justification for embarking on a specific investigation. Therefore, by identifying research gaps, defining clear objectives, emphasizing significance, explaining the chosen methodology, addressing ethical considerations, and recognizing potential limitations, researchers can lay the groundwork for impactful and valuable contributions to the scientific community.

So, are you ready to delve deeper into the world of research and hone your academic writing skills? Explore Enago Academy ‘s comprehensive resources and courses to elevate your research and make a lasting impact in your field. Also, share your thoughts and experiences in the form of an article or a thought piece on Enago Academy’s Open Platform .

Join us on a journey of scholarly excellence today!

Frequently Asked Questions

A rationale of the study can be written by including the following points: 1. Background of the Research/ Study 2. Identifying the Knowledge Gap 3. An Overview of the Goals and Objectives of the Study 4. Methodology and its Significance 5. Relevance of the Research

Start writing a research rationale by defining the research problem and discussing the literature gap associated with it.

A research rationale can be ended by discussing the expected results and summarizing the need of the study.

A rationale for thesis can be made by covering the following points: 1. Extensive coverage of the existing literature 2. Explaining the knowledge gap 3. Provide the framework and objectives of the study 4. Provide a robust justification for the study/ research 5. Highlight the potential of the research and the expected outcomes

A rationale for dissertation can be made by covering the following points: 1. Highlight the existing reference 2. Bridge the gap and establish the context of your research 3. Describe the problem and the objectives 4. Give an overview of the methodology

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• Publishing Research
• Reporting Research

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

For researchers across disciplines, the path to uncovering novel findings and insights is often filled…

• Industry News
• Trending Now

Breaking Barriers: Sony and Nature unveil “Women in Technology Award”

Sony Group Corporation and the prestigious scientific journal Nature have collaborated to launch the inaugural…

Achieving Research Excellence: Checklist for good research practices

Academia is built on the foundation of trustworthy and high-quality research, supported by the pillars…

• Promoting Research

Plain Language Summary — Communicating your research to bridge the academic-lay gap

Science can be complex, but does that mean it should not be accessible to the…

Mitigating Survivorship Bias in Scholarly Research: 10 tips to enhance data integrity

The Power of Proofreading: Taking your academic work to the next level

Facing Difficulty Writing an Academic Essay? — Here is your one-stop solution!

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, how to write the rationale for your research.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 19 November, 2021

The rationale for one’s research is the justification for undertaking a given study. It states the reason(s) why a researcher chooses to focus on the topic in question, including what the significance is and what gaps the research intends to fill. In short, it is an explanation that rationalises the need for the study. The rationale is typically followed by a hypothesis/ research question (s) and the study objectives.

When is the rationale for research written?

The rationale of a study can be presented both before and after the research is conducted. 

• Before : The rationale is a crucial part of your research proposal , representing the plan of your work as formulated before you execute your study.
• After : Once the study is completed, the rationale is presented in a research paper or dissertation to explain why you focused on the particular question. In this instance, you would link the rationale of your research project to the study aims and outcomes.

Basis for writing the research rationale

The study rationale is predominantly based on preliminary data . A literature review will help you identify gaps in the current knowledge base and also ensure that you avoid duplicating what has already been done. You can then formulate the justification for your study from the existing literature on the subject and the perceived outcomes of the proposed study.

Length of the research rationale

In a research proposal or research article, the rationale would not take up more than a few sentences . A thesis or dissertation would allow for a longer description, which could even run into a couple of paragraphs . The length might even depend on the field of study or nature of the experiment. For instance, a completely novel or unconventional approach might warrant a longer and more detailed justification.

Basic elements of the research rationale

Every research rationale should include some mention or discussion of the following: 

• An overview of your conclusions from your literature review
• Gaps in current knowledge
• Inconclusive or controversial findings from previous studies
• The need to build on previous research (e.g. unanswered questions, the need to update concepts in light of new findings and/or new technical advancements). 

Example of a research rationale

Note: This uses a fictional study.

Abc xyz is a newly identified microalgal species isolated from fish tanks. While Abc xyz algal blooms have been seen as a threat to pisciculture, some studies have hinted at their unusually high carotenoid content and unique carotenoid profile. Carotenoid profiling has been carried out only in a handful of microalgal species from this genus, and the search for microalgae rich in bioactive carotenoids has not yielded promising candidates so far. This in-depth examination of the carotenoid profile of Abc xyz will help identify and quantify novel and potentially useful carotenoids from an untapped aquaculture resource .

In conclusion

It is important to describe the rationale of your research in order to put the significance and novelty of your specific research project into perspective. Once you have successfully articulated the reason(s) for your research, you will have convinced readers of the importance of your work!

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services , a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

How to identify Gaps in research and determine your original research topic

Charlesworth Author Services 14/09/2021 00:00:00

Tips for designing your Research Question

Charlesworth Author Services 01/08/2017 00:00:00

Why and How to do a literature search

Charlesworth Author Services 17/08/2020 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication - Module 1: Know when are you ready to write

Charlesworth Author Services 04/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication- Module 3: Understand the structure of an academic paper

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 4: Prepare to write your academic paper

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 5: Conduct a Literature Review

Article sections.

How to write an Introduction to an academic article

Writing a strong Methods section

Charlesworth Author Services 12/03/2021 00:00:00

Strategies for writing the Results section in a scientific paper

Charlesworth Author Services 27/10/2021 00:00:00

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Academic Proposals

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

This resource introduces the genre of academic proposals and provides strategies for developing effective graduate-level proposals across multiple contexts.

Introduction

An important part of the work completed in academia is sharing our scholarship with others. Such communication takes place when we present at scholarly conferences, publish in peer-reviewed journals, and publish in books. This OWL resource addresses the steps in writing for a variety of academic proposals.

For samples of academic proposals, click here .

Important considerations for the writing process

First and foremost, you need to consider your future audience carefully in order to determine both how specific your topic can be and how much background information you need to provide in your proposal. While some conferences and journals may be subject-specific, most will require you to address an audience that does not conduct research on the same topics as you. Conference proposal reviewers are often drawn from professional organization members or other attendees, while journal proposals are typically reviewed by the editorial staff, so you need to ensure that your proposal is geared toward the knowledge base and expectations of whichever audience will read your work.

Along those lines, you might want to check whether you are basing your research on specific prior research and terminology that requires further explanation. As a rule, always phrase your proposal clearly and specifically, avoid over-the-top phrasing and jargon, but do not negate your own personal writing style in the process.

If you would like to add a quotation to your proposal, you are not required to provide a citation or footnote of the source, although it is generally preferred to mention the author’s name. Always put quotes in quotation marks and take care to limit yourself to at most one or two quotations in the entire proposal text. Furthermore, you should always proofread your proposal carefully and check whether you have integrated details, such as author’s name, the correct number of words, year of publication, etc. correctly.

Methodology is often a key factor in the evaluation of proposals for any academic genre — but most proposals have such a small word limit that writers find it difficult to adequately include methods while also discussing their argument, background for the study, results, and contributions to knowledge. It's important to make sure that you include some information about the methods used in your study, even if it's just a line or two; if your proposal isn't experimental in nature, this space should instead describe the theory, lens, or approach you are taking to arrive at your conclusions.

Reasons proposals fail/common pitfalls

There are common pitfalls that you might need to improve on for future proposals.

The proposal does not reflect your enthusiasm and persuasiveness, which usually goes hand in hand with hastily written, simply worded proposals. Generally, the better your research has been, the more familiar you are with the subject and the more smoothly your proposal will come together.

Similarly, proposing a topic that is too broad can harm your chances of being accepted to a conference. Be sure to have a clear focus in your proposal. Usually, this can be avoided by more advanced research to determine what has already been done, especially if the proposal is judged by an important scholar in the field. Check the names of keynote speakers and other attendees of note to avoid repeating known information or not focusing your proposal.

Your paper might simply have lacked the clear language that proposals should contain. On this linguistic level, your proposal might have sounded repetitious, have had boring wording, or simply displayed carelessness and a lack of proofreading, all of which can be remedied by more revisions. One key tactic for ensuring you have clear language in your proposal is signposting — you can pick up key phrases from the CFP, as well as use language that indicates different sections in academic work (as in IMRAD sections from the organization and structure page in this resource). This way, reviewers can easily follow your proposal and identify its relatedness to work in the field and the CFP.

Conference proposals

Conference proposals are a common genre in graduate school that invite several considerations for writing depending on the conference and requirements of the call for papers.

Beginning the process

Make sure you read the call for papers carefully to consider the deadline and orient your topic of presentation around the buzzwords and themes listed in the document. You should take special note of the deadline and submit prior to that date, as most conferences use online submission systems that will close on a deadline and will not accept further submissions.

If you have previously spoken on or submitted a proposal on the same topic, you should carefully adjust it specifically for this conference or even completely rewrite the proposal based on your changing and evolving research.

The topic you are proposing should be one that you can cover easily within a time frame of approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. You should stick to the required word limit of the conference call. The organizers have to read a large number of proposals, especially in the case of an international or interdisciplinary conference, and will appreciate your brevity.

Structure and components

Conference proposals differ widely across fields and even among individual conferences in a field. Some just request an abstract, which is written similarly to any other abstract you'd write for a journal article or other publication. Some may request abstracts or full papers that fit into pre-existing sessions created by conference organizers. Some request both an abstract and a further description or proposal, usually in cases where the abstract will be published in the conference program and the proposal helps organizers decide which papers they will accept. 

If the conference you are submitting to requires a proposal or description, there are some common elements you'll usually need to include. These are a statement of the problem or topic, a discussion of your approach to the problem/topic, a discussion of findings or expected findings, and a discussion of key takeaways or relevance to audience members. These elements are typically given in this order and loosely follow the IMRAD structure discussed in the organization and structure page in this resource. 

The proportional size of each of these elements in relation to one another tends to vary by the stage of your research and the relationship of your topic to the field of the conference. If your research is very early on, you may spend almost no time on findings, because you don't have them yet. Similarly, if your topic is a regular feature at conferences in your field, you may not need to spend as much time introducing it or explaining its relevance to the field; however, if you are working on a newer topic or bringing in a topic or problem from another discipline, you may need to spend slightly more space explaining it to reviewers. These decisions should usually be based on an analysis of your audience — what information can reviewers be reasonably expected to know, and what will you have to tell them?

Journal Proposals

Most of the time, when you submit an article to a journal for publication, you'll submit a finished manuscript which contains an abstract, the text of the article, the bibliography, any appendices, and author bios. These can be on any topic that relates to the journal's scope of interest, and they are accepted year-round.

Special issues , however, are planned issues of a journal that center around a specific theme, usually a "hot topic" in the field. The editor or guest editors for the special issue will often solicit proposals with a call for papers (CFP) first, accept a certain number of proposals for further development into article manuscripts, and then accept the final articles for the special issue from that smaller pool. Special issues are typically the only time when you will need to submit a proposal to write a journal article, rather than submitting a completed manuscript.

Journal proposals share many qualities with conference proposals: you need to write for your audience, convey the significance of your work, and condense the various sections of a full study into a small word or page limit. In general, the necessary components of a proposal include:

• Problem or topic statement that defines the subject of your work (often includes research questions)
• Background information (think literature review) that indicates the topic's importance in your field as well as indicates that your research adds something to the scholarship on this topic
• Methodology and methods used in the study (and an indication of why these methods are the correct ones for your research questions)
• Results or findings (which can be tentative or preliminary, if the study has not yet been completed)
• Significance and implications of the study (what will readers learn? why should they care?)

This order is a common one because it loosely follows the IMRAD (introduction, methods, results and discussion) structure often used in academic writing; however, it is not the only possible structure or even always the best structure. You may need to move these elements around depending on the expectations in your field, the word or page limit, or the instructions given in the CFP.

Some of the unique considerations of journal proposals are:

• The CFP may ask you for an abstract, a proposal, or both. If you need to write an abstract, look for more information on the abstract page. If you need to write both an abstract and a proposal, make sure to clarify for yourself what the difference is. Usually the proposal needs to include more information about the significance, methods, and/or background of the study than will fit in the abstract, but often the CFP itself will give you some instructions as to what information the editors are wanting in each piece of writing.
• Journal special issue CFPs, like conference CFPs, often include a list of topics or questions that describe the scope of the special issue. These questions or topics are a good starting place for generating a proposal or tying in your research; ensuring that your work is a good fit for the special issue and articulating why that is in the proposal increases your chances of being accepted.
• Special issues are not less valuable or important than regularly scheduled issues; therefore, your proposal needs to show that your work fits and could readily be accepted in any other issue of the journal. This means following some of the same practices you would if you were preparing to submit a manuscript to a journal: reading the journal's author submission guidelines; reading the last several years of the journal to understand the usual topics, organization, and methods; citing pieces from this journal and other closely related journals in your research.

Book Proposals

While the requirements are very similar to those of conference proposals, proposals for a book ought to address a few other issues.

General considerations

Since these proposals are of greater length, the publisher will require you to delve into greater detail as well—for instance, regarding the organization of the proposed book or article.

Publishers generally require a clear outline of the chapters you are proposing and an explication of their content, which can be several pages long in its entirety.

You will need to incorporate knowledge of relevant literature, use headings and sub-headings that you should not use in conference proposals. Be sure to know who wrote what about your topic and area of interest, even if you are proposing a less scholarly project.

Publishers prefer depth rather than width when it comes to your topic, so you should be as focused as possible and further outline your intended audience.

You should always include information regarding your proposed deadlines for the project and how you will execute this plan, especially in the sciences. Potential investors or publishers need to know that you have a clear and efficient plan to accomplish your proposed goals. Depending on the subject area, this information can also include a proposed budget, materials or machines required to execute this project, and information about its industrial application.

Pre-writing strategies

As John Boswell (cited in: Larsen, Michael. How to Write a Book Proposal. Writers Digest Books , 2004. p. 1) explains, “today fully 90 percent of all nonfiction books sold to trade publishers are acquired on the basis of a proposal alone.” Therefore, editors and agents generally do not accept completed manuscripts for publication, as these “cannot (be) put into the usual channels for making a sale”, since they “lack answers to questions of marketing, competition, and production.” (Lyon, Elizabeth. Nonfiction Book Proposals Anybody Can Write . Perigee Trade, 2002. pp. 6-7.)

In contrast to conference or, to a lesser degree, chapter proposals, a book proposal introduces your qualifications for writing it and compares your work to what others have done or failed to address in the past.

As a result, you should test the idea with your networks and, if possible, acquire other people’s proposals that discuss similar issues or have a similar format before submitting your proposal. Prior to your submission, it is recommended that you write at least part of the manuscript in addition to checking the competition and reading all about the topic.

The following is a list of questions to ask yourself before committing to a book project, but should in no way deter you from taking on a challenging project (adapted from Lyon 27). Depending on your field of study, some of these might be more relevant to you than others, but nonetheless useful to reiterate and pose to yourself.

• Do you have sufficient enthusiasm for a project that may span years?
• Will publication of your book satisfy your long-term career goals?
• Do you have enough material for such a long project and do you have the background knowledge and qualifications required for it?
• Is your book idea better than or different from other books on the subject? Does the idea spark enthusiasm not just in yourself but others in your field, friends, or prospective readers?
• Are you willing to acquire any lacking skills, such as, writing style, specific terminology and knowledge on that field for this project? Will it fit into your career and life at the time or will you not have the time to engage in such extensive research?

Essential elements of a book proposal

Your book proposal should include the following elements:

• Your proposal requires the consideration of the timing and potential for sale as well as its potential for subsidiary rights.
• It needs to include an outline of approximately one paragraph to one page of prose (Larsen 6) as well as one sample chapter to showcase the style and quality of your writing.
• You should also include the resources you need for the completion of the book and a biographical statement (“About the Author”).
• Your proposal must contain your credentials and expertise, preferably from previous publications on similar issues.
• A book proposal also provides you with the opportunity to include information such as a mission statement, a foreword by another authority, or special features—for instance, humor, anecdotes, illustrations, sidebars, etc.
• You must assess your ability to promote the book and know the market that you target in all its statistics.

The following proposal structure, as outlined by Peter E. Dunn for thesis and fellowship proposals, provides a useful guide to composing such a long proposal (Dunn, Peter E. “Proposal Writing.” Center for Instructional Excellence, Purdue University, 2007):

• Literature Review
• Identification of Problem
• Statement of Objectives
• Rationale and Significance
• Methods and Timeline
• Literature Cited

Most proposals for manuscripts range from thirty to fifty pages and, apart from the subject hook, book information (length, title, selling handle), markets for your book, and the section about the author, all the other sections are optional. Always anticipate and answer as many questions by editors as possible, however.

Finally, include the best chapter possible to represent your book's focus and style. Until an agent or editor advises you to do otherwise, follow your book proposal exactly without including something that you might not want to be part of the book or improvise on possible expected recommendations.

Publishers expect to acquire the book's primary rights, so that they can sell it in an adapted or condensed form as well. Mentioning any subsidiary rights, such as translation opportunities, performance and merchandising rights, or first-serial rights, will add to the editor's interest in buying your book. It is enticing to publishers to mention your manuscript's potential to turn into a series of books, although they might still hesitate to buy it right away—at least until the first one has been a successful endeavor.

The sample chapter

Since editors generally expect to see about one-tenth of a book, your sample chapter's length should reflect that in these building blocks of your book. The chapter should reflect your excitement and the freshness of the idea as well as surprise editors, but do not submit part of one or more chapters. Always send a chapter unless your credentials are impeccable due to prior publications on the subject. Do not repeat information in the sample chapter that will be covered by preceding or following ones, as the outline should be designed in such a way as to enable editors to understand the context already.

How to make your proposal stand out

Depending on the subject of your book, it is advisable to include illustrations that exemplify your vision of the book and can be included in the sample chapter. While these can make the book more expensive, it also increases the salability of the project. Further, you might consider including outstanding samples of your published work, such as clips from periodicals, if they are well-respected in the field. Thirdly, cover art can give your potential publisher a feel for your book and its marketability, especially if your topic is creative or related to the arts.

In addition, professionally formatting your materials will give you an edge over sloppy proposals. Proofread the materials carefully, use consistent and carefully organized fonts, spacing, etc., and submit your proposal without staples; rather, submit it in a neat portfolio that allows easy access and reassembling. However, check the submission guidelines first, as most proposals are submitted digitally. Finally, you should try to surprise editors and attract their attention. Your hook, however, should be imaginative but inexpensive (you do not want to bribe them, after all). Make sure your hook draws the editors to your book proposal immediately (Adapted from Larsen 154-60).

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

How to Write a Dissertation Proposal | A Step-by-Step Guide

Published on 14 February 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on 11 November 2022.

A dissertation proposal describes the research you want to do: what it’s about, how you’ll conduct it, and why it’s worthwhile. You will probably have to write a proposal before starting your dissertation as an undergraduate or postgraduate student.

A dissertation proposal should generally include:

• An introduction to your topic and aims
• A literature review  of the current state of knowledge
• An outline of your proposed methodology
• A discussion of the possible implications of the research
• A bibliography  of relevant sources

Dissertation proposals vary a lot in terms of length and structure, so make sure to follow any guidelines given to you by your institution, and check with your supervisor when you’re unsure.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Step 1: coming up with an idea, step 2: presenting your idea in the introduction, step 3: exploring related research in the literature review, step 4: describing your methodology, step 5: outlining the potential implications of your research, step 6: creating a reference list or bibliography.

Before writing your proposal, it’s important to come up with a strong idea for your dissertation.

Find an area of your field that interests you and do some preliminary reading in that area. What are the key concerns of other researchers? What do they suggest as areas for further research, and what strikes you personally as an interesting gap in the field?

Once you have an idea, consider how to narrow it down and the best way to frame it. Don’t be too ambitious or too vague – a dissertation topic needs to be specific enough to be feasible. Move from a broad field of interest to a specific niche:

• Russian literature 19th century Russian literature The novels of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky
• Social media Mental health effects of social media Influence of social media on young adults suffering from anxiety

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Like most academic texts, a dissertation proposal begins with an introduction . This is where you introduce the topic of your research, provide some background, and most importantly, present your aim , objectives and research question(s) .

Try to dive straight into your chosen topic: What’s at stake in your research? Why is it interesting? Don’t spend too long on generalisations or grand statements:

• Social media is the most important technological trend of the 21st century. It has changed the world and influences our lives every day.
• Psychologists generally agree that the ubiquity of social media in the lives of young adults today has a profound impact on their mental health. However, the exact nature of this impact needs further investigation.

Once your area of research is clear, you can present more background and context. What does the reader need to know to understand your proposed questions? What’s the current state of research on this topic, and what will your dissertation contribute to the field?

If you’re including a literature review, you don’t need to go into too much detail at this point, but give the reader a general sense of the debates that you’re intervening in.

This leads you into the most important part of the introduction: your aim, objectives and research question(s) . These should be clearly identifiable and stand out from the text – for example, you could present them using bullet points or bold font.

Make sure that your research questions are specific and workable – something you can reasonably answer within the scope of your dissertation. Avoid being too broad or having too many different questions. Remember that your goal in a dissertation proposal is to convince the reader that your research is valuable and feasible:

• Does social media harm mental health?
• What is the impact of daily social media use on 18– to 25–year–olds suffering from general anxiety disorder?

Now that your topic is clear, it’s time to explore existing research covering similar ideas. This is important because it shows you what is missing from other research in the field and ensures that you’re not asking a question someone else has already answered.

You’ve probably already done some preliminary reading, but now that your topic is more clearly defined, you need to thoroughly analyse and evaluate the most relevant sources in your literature review .

Here you should summarise the findings of other researchers and comment on gaps and problems in their studies. There may be a lot of research to cover, so make effective use of paraphrasing to write concisely:

• Smith and Prakash state that ‘our results indicate a 25% decrease in the incidence of mechanical failure after the new formula was applied’.
• Smith and Prakash’s formula reduced mechanical failures by 25%.

The point is to identify findings and theories that will influence your own research, but also to highlight gaps and limitations in previous research which your dissertation can address:

• Subsequent research has failed to replicate this result, however, suggesting a flaw in Smith and Prakash’s methods. It is likely that the failure resulted from…

Next, you’ll describe your proposed methodology : the specific things you hope to do, the structure of your research and the methods that you will use to gather and analyse data.

You should get quite specific in this section – you need to convince your supervisor that you’ve thought through your approach to the research and can realistically carry it out. This section will look quite different, and vary in length, depending on your field of study.

You may be engaged in more empirical research, focusing on data collection and discovering new information, or more theoretical research, attempting to develop a new conceptual model or add nuance to an existing one.

Dissertation research often involves both, but the content of your methodology section will vary according to how important each approach is to your dissertation.

Empirical research

Empirical research involves collecting new data and analysing it in order to answer your research questions. It can be quantitative (focused on numbers), qualitative (focused on words and meanings), or a combination of both.

With empirical research, it’s important to describe in detail how you plan to collect your data:

• Will you use surveys ? A lab experiment ? Interviews?
• What variables will you measure?
• How will you select a representative sample ?
• If other people will participate in your research, what measures will you take to ensure they are treated ethically?
• What tools (conceptual and physical) will you use, and why?

It’s appropriate to cite other research here. When you need to justify your choice of a particular research method or tool, for example, you can cite a text describing the advantages and appropriate usage of that method.

Don’t overdo this, though; you don’t need to reiterate the whole theoretical literature, just what’s relevant to the choices you have made.

Moreover, your research will necessarily involve analysing the data after you have collected it. Though you don’t know yet what the data will look like, it’s important to know what you’re looking for and indicate what methods (e.g. statistical tests , thematic analysis ) you will use.

Theoretical research

You can also do theoretical research that doesn’t involve original data collection. In this case, your methodology section will focus more on the theory you plan to work with in your dissertation: relevant conceptual models and the approach you intend to take.

For example, a literary analysis dissertation rarely involves collecting new data, but it’s still necessary to explain the theoretical approach that will be taken to the text(s) under discussion, as well as which parts of the text(s) you will focus on:

• This dissertation will utilise Foucault’s theory of panopticism to explore the theme of surveillance in Orwell’s 1984 and Kafka’s The Trial…

Here, you may refer to the same theorists you have already discussed in the literature review. In this case, the emphasis is placed on how you plan to use their contributions in your own research.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

You’ll usually conclude your dissertation proposal with a section discussing what you expect your research to achieve.

You obviously can’t be too sure: you don’t know yet what your results and conclusions will be. Instead, you should describe the projected implications and contribution to knowledge of your dissertation.

First, consider the potential implications of your research. Will you:

• Develop or test a theory?
• Provide new information to governments or businesses?
• Challenge a commonly held belief?
• Suggest an improvement to a specific process?

Describe the intended result of your research and the theoretical or practical impact it will have:

Finally, it’s sensible to conclude by briefly restating the contribution to knowledge you hope to make: the specific question(s) you hope to answer and the gap the answer(s) will fill in existing knowledge:

Like any academic text, it’s important that your dissertation proposal effectively references all the sources you have used. You need to include a properly formatted reference list or bibliography at the end of your proposal.

Different institutions recommend different styles of referencing – commonly used styles include Harvard , Vancouver , APA , or MHRA . If your department does not have specific requirements, choose a style and apply it consistently.

A reference list includes only the sources that you cited in your proposal. A bibliography is slightly different: it can include every source you consulted in preparing the proposal, even if you didn’t mention it in the text. In the case of a dissertation proposal, a bibliography may also list relevant sources that you haven’t yet read, but that you intend to use during the research itself.

Check with your supervisor what type of bibliography or reference list you should include.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2022, November 11). How to Write a Dissertation Proposal | A Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved 26 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, what is a dissertation | 5 essential questions to get started, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

• AI Content Shield
• AI KW Research
• AI Assistant
• SEO Optimizer
• AI KW Clustering
• Customer reviews
• The NLO Revolution
• Press Center
• Help Center
• Content Resources
• Facebook Group

How to Write the Rationale for a Research Proposal

Table of Contents

Writing a research proposal can be intimidating, especially when you are expected to explain the rationale behind your project. This article will help you learn how to write the rationale for a research proposal to provide justification for why it should be pursued. A good rationale should give readers an understanding of why your project is worth undertaking and how it will contribute to existing knowledge. It should outline any practical implications that could come from your work. By thoroughly preparing this section of your proposal , you will increase the chances of having your research approved.

What Is a Rationale in Research?

A research rationale provides a detailed explanation of why a study is necessary and should be carried out. It convinces the reader or examiner of the importance of the research by outlining its relevance, significance, and potential contribution to existing knowledge. Additionally, it helps transition from the research problem to the methods used in the study, connecting both elements into one comprehensive argument. The research rationale justifies why the researcher chose to conduct this particular study over any other possible alternative studies.

Why Is a Research Rationale Important?

A well-written rationale can help demonstrate your commitment to the project. It can convince reviewers that you have put thought into developing a high-quality research plan. When composing this section, focus on the scientific merit of your proposed study by providing clear and concise reasons for conducting the research. Your goal is to communicate the potential benefits of your project and show that you understand its limitations. Include sufficient detail about the methods you plan to use, any ethical considerations to consider, and how you will evaluate your results. Explaining why your research is important and necessary is essential for getting approval from funding bodies or academic institutions. Your rationale should provide a convincing argument for why the project needs to be conducted. The rationale must make it clear that there are potential benefits that justify its costs. Consider the broader impact of your work and describe how it could contribute to furthering knowledge in the field.

The rationale for research is also known as the justification of the study. Make a mention of the following points while writing the rationale for a research proposal:

Background on All Previous Research on the Subject of Your Study

It is important to include background information on what research has already been done on the study topic. This will help to build a foundation for understanding the current knowledge, open questions, and gaps.

The Open Questions of the Study

Highlighting the open questions related to the study topic helps to identify potential areas for further exploration. It gives readers an understanding of where new research could be helpful. It is essential to state these questions to have clear objectives and goals for the research proposal.

Identify the Gaps in Literature

Identifying literature gaps helps highlight areas that have not yet been studied. This provides the opportunity to add new information and understanding to the field. By including these points in the rationale, the writer can showcase how his work will contribute to existing research.

Highlight the Significance of Addressing These Gaps

Emphasizing why it is important to address those gaps is vital in any research proposal. It allows readers to understand why this particular project needs to be undertaken. By clearly outlining why addressing these gaps is crucial, the writer can successfully argue why his proposed project should be given consideration.

A rationale for a research proposal can help convince the reader of the importance and relevance of your study. This article explains the importance of a rationale and discusses the key elements to learn how to write the rationale for a research proposal . Following these tips will let you create a powerful research rationale that will help convince others of the value of your project.

Abir Ghenaiet

Abir is a data analyst and researcher. Among her interests are artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing. As a humanitarian and educator, she actively supports women in tech and promotes diversity.

Explore All Proposal Generator Articles

Creative terms and conditions agreement in business proposal.

In business, proposals are essential for securing contracts and agreements with clients. However, a proposal is only complete with terms…

• Proposal Generator

Free guide to a statement of proposal sample

A statement of proposal is a document that outlines a proposed project or initiative in detail. It is typically used…

Free Proposal Letter for Training and Development for a Head Start

Training and development are essential to improve employees’ skills, knowledge, and productivity. A well-crafted training proposal can help an organization…

Detailed Guide to Free HR Consulting Proposal

HR consulting is an essential service for businesses of all sizes. HR consultants provide expert guidance to organizations on various…

Key Guide to Better Remote Work Proposal

The rise of remote work has been a significant trend in the business world over the last few years. With…

Guide to Free E-Commerce Proposal Template

E-commerce has become one of the most popular ways of doing business recently. With the increasing number of people using…

Rationale for the Study

It is important for you to be able to explain the importance of the research you are conducting by providing valid arguments. Rationale for the study, also referred to as justification for the study, is reason why you have conducted your study in the first place. This part in your paper needs to explain uniqueness and importance of your research. Rationale for the study needs to be specific and ideally, it should relate to the following points:

1. The research needs to contribute to the elimination of a gap in the literature. Elimination of gap in the present literature is one of the compulsory requirements for your study. In other words, you don’t need to ‘re-invent the wheel’ and your research aims and objectives need to focus on new topics. For example, you can choose to conduct an empirical study to assess the implications of COVID-19 pandemic on the numbers of tourists visitors in your city. This might be previously undressed topic, taking into account that COVID-19 pandemic is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Alternatively, if you cannot find a new topic to research, you can attempt to offer fresh perspectives on existing management, business or economic issues. For example, while thousands of studies have been previously conducted to study various aspects of leadership, this topic as far from being exhausted as a research area. Specifically, new studies can be conducted in the area of leadership to analyze the impacts of new communication mediums such as TikTok, and other social networking sites on leadership practices.

You can also discuss the shortcomings of previous works devoted to your research area. Shortcomings in previous studies can be divided into three groups:

a) Methodological limitations . Methodology employed in previous study may be flawed in terms of research design, research approach or sampling.

b) Contextual limitations . Relevance of previous works may be non-existent for the present because external factors have changed.

c) Conceptual limitations . Previous studies may be unjustifiably bound up to a particular model or an ideology.

While discussing the shortcomings of previous studies you should explain how you are going to correct them. This principle is true to almost all areas in business studies i.e. gaps or shortcomings in the literature can be found in relation to almost all areas of business and economics.

2. The research can be conducted to solve a specific problem. It helps if you can explain why you are the right person and in the right position to solve the problem. You have to explain the essence of the problem in a detailed manner and highlight practical benefits associated with the solution of the problem. Suppose, your dissertation topic is “a study into advantages and disadvantages of various entry strategies into Chinese market”. In this case, you can say that practical implications of your research relates to assisting businesses aiming to enter Chinese market to do more informed decision making.

Alternatively, if your research is devoted to the analysis of impacts of CSR programs and initiatives on brand image, practical contributions of your study would relate to contributing to the level of effectiveness of CSR programs of businesses.

Additional examples of studies that can assist to address specific practical problems may include the following:

• A study into the reasons of high employee turnover at Hanson Brick
• A critical analysis of employee motivation problems at Esporta, Finchley Road, London
• A research into effective succession planning at Microsoft
• A study into major differences between private and public primary education in the USA and implications of these differences on the quality of education

However, it is important to note that it is not an obligatory for a dissertation   to be associated with the solution of a specific problem. Dissertations can be purely theory-based as well. Examples of such studies include the following:

• Born or bred: revising The Great Man theory of leadership in the 21 st century
• A critical analysis of the relevance of McClelland’s Achievement theory to the US information technology industry
• Neoliberalism as a major reason behind the emergence of the global financial and economic crisis of 2007-2009
• Analysis of Lewin’s Model of Change and its relevance to pharmaceutical sector of France

3. Your study has to contribute to the level of professional development of the researcher . That is you. You have to explain in a detailed manner in what ways your research contributes to the achievement of your long-term career aspirations.

For example, you have selected a research topic of “ A critical analysis of the relevance of McClelland’s Achievement theory in the US information technology industry ”.  You may state that you associate your career aspirations with becoming an IT executive in the US, and accordingly, in-depth knowledge of employee motivation in this industry is going to contribute your chances of success in your chosen career path.

Therefore, you are in a better position if you have already identified your career objectives, so that during the research process you can get detailed knowledge about various aspects of your chosen industry.

My e-book, The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline.

John Dudovskiy

• My UW-System
• Student Life
• Schools & Colleges
• Centers & Institutes
• Leadership Team
• For Faculty and Staff
• For Researchers
• Request Info
• Give to UWM

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

College of letters & science communication.

Powerful Ideas. Proven Results.

Thesis Proposals

All students should give serious consideration to electing to write a thesis. A thesis involves original research and is a proven method for developing specialized knowledge and skills that can enhance an individual’s expertise within a substantive area of study. A thesis is recommended for students who intend to continue study toward the PhD degree or plan research-related employment. If the thesis option is elected, the student must write the thesis and pass an oral examination on a report of research initiated by the student under the guidance of the major professor. A faculty committee, chaired by the major professor, will evaluate the written report and conduct an oral examination of the candidate.

Thesis Proposal Outline

This sample outline may not be appropriate for some studies. You should decide, in consultation with your major professor, whether to follow the sample outline below or modify it to suit the needs of your particular study. Proposals from former students are available on the department website and can be reviewed to assist you in developing your proposal.

• General background of the subject area
• Specific background for the topic of investigation
• Review of the literature
• Definitions of all key terms
• The hypotheses or questions to be addressed
• Identify and justify the choice of general approach and specific research method
• Subjects (if applicable; describe them and your rationale for their selection)
• Limitations
• Outline of Projected Results
• Potential Conclusions and Implications
• “Working” Bibliography of Sources & Materials

Sample Thesis Proposals

•   Sample 1
•   Sample 2
•   Sample 3

• Honors Undergraduate Thesis
• Program Resources

Thesis Proposal Examples

The Honors Undergraduate Thesis program requires students to submit a research proposal to the Office of Honors Research prior to advancing to the Thesis semester.

Generally, a scientific research proposal will include a brief introduction to the research topic, a literature review, and a methodology that will explain how the student plans to meet the objectives of the research. A proposal in the Arts and Humanities will generally include an introduction and a creative work (e.g. screenplays, short stories, artwork) or theoretical analysis.

Students will create a signature cover page for the thesis proposal that will list the entire committee and HUT Liaison. The Thesis proposal cover page template can be found here .

The following are examples of substantially researched, properly formatted research proposals and their respective signature pages. These examples should be used for reference only and not necessarily as templates. Students should his or her Thesis Chair and committee regarding the structure of the proposal, information that should be present, and documentation style.

What is a Thesis Proposal?

A thesis proposal is a document that outlines the thesis topic, defines the issues that the thesis will address, and explains why the topic warrants further research. It should identify a problem and provide a proposed solution to that problem.

Proposals representative of the sciences (both hard sciences and social sciences) should generally include the following:

• A brief introduction, which will define the thesis topic and explain the purpose of the thesis.
• A literature review that outlines the most relevant readings and theories which pertain to the thesis topic.
• A methodology section, which should include the research questions, hypotheses, participants, materials, and procedures.
• A bibliography or reference list. Most of the sources should be from peer reviewed articles or books. As with other academic papers, the use of internet sources should be limited.

For students conducting more theoretical or comparative analyses, the structure could also take the form of chapters that define and specify each concept, and a concluding chapter that brings all of these ideas together.

For students in the arts, a proposal and thesis may take the form of a creative project. In this instance, the proposal may include:

• A brief introduction, which includes the thesis statement, general intent of project, what the project should accomplish, and justification for considering the project a legitimate endeavor.
• A literature review, which includes any supporting literature that justifies the intention of the project.
• A method for accomplishing the project. Include any necessary background or equipment needed for the project, where the project will be conducted, and a proposed timeline for completion.
• A bibliography or reference list.

An alternative structure would be for students who are writing their own short stories, novellas, or screenplays.

Here, the thesis should include a clear mastery of the skill set by producing chapters of the novella, poetry selections, or the working/final screenplay. [/accordion-item][/accordion]

Burnett School of Biomedical Sciences Biomedical Sciences

College of Arts and Humanities Art History History English-Creative Writing English-Literature Philosophy

College of Business Administration Finance

College of Nursing Nursing

College of Education and Human Performance Elementary Education English Language Arts Education

College of Engineering and Computer Science

Computer Engineering Mechanical Engineering

College of Health and Public Affairs Legal Studies Sports and Exercise Science 

College of Nursing Nursing -->

College of Sciences Anthropology Chemistry Mathematics Physics International & Global Studies Psychology Sociology

Research Proposal Example/Sample

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Proposal Template

If you’re getting started crafting your research proposal and are looking for a few examples of research proposals , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through two successful (approved) research proposals , one for a Master’s-level project, and one for a PhD-level dissertation. We also start off by unpacking our free research proposal template and discussing the four core sections of a research proposal, so that you have a clear understanding of the basics before diving into the actual proposals.

• Research proposal example/sample – Master’s-level (PDF/Word)
• Research proposal example/sample – PhD-level (PDF/Word)
• Proposal template (Fully editable) 

If you’re working on a research proposal for a dissertation or thesis, you may also find the following useful:

• Research Proposal Bootcamp : Learn how to write a research proposal as efficiently and effectively as possible
• 1:1 Proposal Coaching : Get hands-on help with your research proposal

PS – If you’re working on a dissertation, be sure to also check out our collection of dissertation and thesis examples here .

FAQ: Research Proposal Example

Research proposal example: frequently asked questions, are the sample proposals real.

Yes. The proposals are real and were approved by the respective universities.

Can I copy one of these proposals for my own research?

As we discuss in the video, every research proposal will be slightly different, depending on the university’s unique requirements, as well as the nature of the research itself. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your research proposal to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a research proposal here .

How do I get the research proposal template?

You can access our free proposal template here .

Is the proposal template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the proposal template and you are free to use it as a foundation for your research proposal.

Where can I learn more about proposal writing?

For self-directed learners, our Research Proposal Bootcamp is a great starting point.

For students that want hands-on guidance, our private coaching service is recommended.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

10 Comments

I am at the stage of writing my thesis proposal for a PhD in Management at Altantic International University. I checked on the coaching services, but it indicates that it’s not available in my area. I am in South Sudan. My proposed topic is: “Leadership Behavior in Local Government Governance Ecosystem and Service Delivery Effectiveness in Post Conflict Districts of Northern Uganda”. I will appreciate your guidance and support

GRADCOCH is very grateful motivated and helpful for all students etc. it is very accorporated and provide easy access way strongly agree from GRADCOCH.

Proposal research departemet management

I am at the stage of writing my thesis proposal for a masters in Analysis of w heat commercialisation by small holders householdrs at Hawassa International University. I will appreciate your guidance and support

please provide a attractive proposal about foreign universities .It would be your highness.

comparative constitutional law

Kindly guide me through writing a good proposal on the thesis topic; Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Financial Inclusion in Nigeria. Thank you

Kindly help me write a research proposal on the topic of impacts of artisanal gold panning on the environment

I am in the process of research proposal for my Master of Art with a topic : “factors influence on first-year students’s academic adjustment”. I am absorbing in GRADCOACH and interested in such proposal sample. However, it is great for me to learn and seeking for more new updated proposal framework from GRADCAOCH.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Investing in Research: A Proposal to Strengthen the Agricultural, Food, and Environmental System (1989)

Chapter: 3 rationale for the proposal.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Rationale for the Proposal The fundamental reason for this proposal is that major challenges with substantial implications for the well-being of the United States are confronting the U.S. agricultural, food, and environmental system. A greater research and development (R&D) capacity is needed to fuel the necessary advances in science and technology to address these challenges. These chal- lenges are broad, and each relates to the entire agricul- tural and food enterprise and to the environmental and social quality of the nation. An overview of the challenges is contained in Chapter 4; a brief synopsis of each follows: Competitiveness and strong economic perform- ance are crucial for the economic vitality of U.S. agriculture and for agriculture's capacity to provide low-cost, nutritious food to consumers: increasing the efficiency and profitability of the food, fiber, and processing industries; reducing the environmental costs of such actions as pesticide use and waste manage- ment; making available, and using, modern equip- ment and technology that have state-of-the-art control and management systems and sensors. Contributing to human health and well-being is the goal of the entire agricultural and food system: increasing the nutrient availability of all foods; mak- ing optimally nutritious foods conveniently available to all Americans even while social patterns are chang- ing; and elucidating the full relationship between diet and health. Natural resources stewardship is necessary for maintaining the health of the environment: providing the basis for prudent long-term production systems and resource sustainability; minimizing direct costs to producers for maintaining environmental quality and indirect costs suffered by consumers when environ- mental quality is diminished; and ensuring high envi 17 ronmental quality, with its concomitant benefits for food, soil, and water. One way to deal effectively with the challenges and with the myriad of specific research needs is to exploit current opportunities in science and technology by expanding the nation's R&D system. This chapter presents the rationale for all aspects of the proposal except for that on program areas and sci- entific opportunities (which are discussed in Chapter 51: · Support for fundamental science is mainly a fed- eral responsibility. The agricultural, food, and environmental re- search system requires a substantial increase in fund- ing to conduct the needed research programs and to cover the necessary program areas adequately. The money should be new funding, not redi- rected funding. Responsibility for administering the additional funds should lie with the U.S. Department of Agricul- ture (USDA). The increased funding should be for competitive grants, not for some other form of allocation. · Competitive grants to principal investigators  should be complemented by multidisciplinary and research-s~engthening grants. A FEDERAL INITIATIVE Funding for research in science and technology comes from the state, private, and federal sectors. However, primary responsibility for supporting fun- damental research that benefits the nation as a whole has traditionally been assumed by the federal govern- ment; and neither the states nor the private sector can

18 be expected to underwrite a marked expansion in the overall science and technology effort in agriculture, food, and the environment. State Sector States are highly unlikely to provide additional funds for research, nor should they be asked to do so. First, state expenditures for agricultural research are already significant. Second, and even more important, the research to be funded by the program proposed here is of national importance rather than of directly local or state importance. Mainly through their land-grant universities, the states already do more than half of all research related to the agricultural, food, and environmental system. Since 1972, only about 30 percent of the states' re- search funding has come from all federal sources (about two-thirds of that from USDA). In 1988, when total funding for state research was $1,674 million, the states themselves provided $822.8 million, the federal gov- emment $577.3 million, and industry $99 million; the remainder came from sales and other income. Of the federal funding, $383.5 million came from USDA through formula and other funds and $45.4 million came through USDA competitive grants (see Appendix A). Given the pressure on states to fund state respon- sibilities that are continuously increasing, they will almost certainly not tee able to increase their proportion of research funding. For program reasons, too, funding for this expanded research program is a federal, not a state, responsibility. The research to be funded by the expanded competitive grants program will not-even in mission-linked and research-strengthening grants fund research that is narrowly focused on local, state, or regional needs. Rather, it will increase the fundamental understanding of basic biological and physical phenomena that relate to agriculture, food, and the environment, thus contrib- uting substantially to the national base of knowledge for the agricultural system and strengthen the national infrastructure of that system. Private Sector INVESTING IN RESEARCH search investments may retrench somewhat in the years ahead. Even if private sector R&D were to increase, however, its priorities would not fully match or encompass national needs because of product de- velopment and proprietary considerations. Level of Export The capacity of private firms to support R&D is a function of their gross sales, their profits, and the percentage of either gross sales or pretax profits that a company is willing to invest in R&D. The percentage of commitment of R&D funds ranges among compa- nies. As one might expect, to remain competitive and profitable, industries that place relatively less empha- sis on new technology tend to invest a smaller portion of their sales and profits in R&D; high-technology industries with higher returns in dynamic markets  invest more heavily. The food and the paper and forest products indus- tnes fall within a group of industries in which R&D investments are relatively low (see Table 3.1~. These two industries spent 9.4 and 10.3 percent, respec- tively, of pretax profits on R&D in 1987. This repre- sents the lowest level of R&D by all industries sur- veyed except for nonbank financial institutions. Not surprisingly, high-technology industries with patent protection and proprietary technologies were found to commit 30 to 50 percent or more of pretax profits to R&D (aerospace, 86.7 percent; chemicals, 31.8 per- cent; computers, 60.3 percent; health care, 52.6 per- cent). Prospects for Growth In the decade ahead, the following factors are likely to affect industrial R&D (see Appendix B): · Public policies that affect cropping patterns, natural resource stewardship goals, and the manner in which food safety and environmental problems are addressed. · Public sector R&D priorities and accomplish ments. Tax and monetary policy, general economic Like the state sector, the private sector plays a vital conditions, and interest rates. role in ongoing agricultural, food, and forestry research · Trade policies, both domestic and international. activities. However, it, too, cannot be expected to Policies affecting trade in technology and intel underwrite a marked expansion in the nation's overall science and technology effort in agricultural, food, and environmental research. Indeed, private sector re- national. lectual property. Governmentregulations, both domestic and inter

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL TABLE 3.1 Private Sector Sales, Profits, and R&D for Selected Major Industries, 1987 (in millions of dollars) Net Industrial Sector Gross Sales Profits R&D Expense Percent R&D of Pretax Profits Aerospace $88,435.1$2,824.7$3,865.4 86.7 Automotive 246,847.411,125.58,653.0 54.6 Chemicals 112,053.17,403.84,168.3 31.8 Computers 107,976.88,836.28,804.1 60.3 Consumer products 71,288.83,302.71,426.1 25.1 Personal care 35,879.91,450.5968.7 38.2 Electrical and electronics 95,625.74,283.15,055.6 71.2 Fooda 88,622.63,362.0578.4 9.4 Fuel 285,216.35,493.71,906.2 12.2 Health care 70,252.76,404.15,554.9 52.6 Manufacturing 64,650.82,170.81,462.6 40.2 Metals and mining 26,028.1583.8306.3 31.7 Nonbank financial 9,698.3767.657.4 6.4 Paper and forest products 42,071.22,456.6429.3 10.3 Telecommunications 52,551.13,278.02,909.5 55.9 NOTE: Industry composites are Strom Business Week (see Source below). aThe food industry composite includes 25 companies with gross sales of $88.6 billion, including two seed companies (whose percent R&D of pretax profits are 50.9 and 86.8) and several major food processors and manufacturers representing all segments of the industry. SOURCE: Business Week. June 20, 1988. A perilous cutback in research spending. Pp. 139-162. Gross and net farm Income, and export demand and performance. Corporate consolidations and methods of financ- ing mergers. Various scenarios for the relationship between these policy and economic factors, on the one hand, and sales, profits, and private sector R&D, on the other, are presented in Appendix B. If a strong and sustained economic recovery in the farm sector in the l990s were coupled with expanded crop production, private sector R&D might rise by as much as 9 to 13 percent. But such an eventuality, although possible, is not highly probable. Rather, a continued period of little or no increase in commodity prices is more likely, which may hold down increases in production levels. In addition, public policies and regulations may impose new costs related to food safety and 19 natural resource stewardship. In this unfavorable scenario, private sector R&D might decline by 5 to 7 percent during the next decade. Focus of Private Sector R&D Private sector firms finance R&D from the sale of current products or from investment capital that seeks  a return through future product sales. Thus, industrial R&D usually emphasizes areas of commercial or near-term interest and may give only modest attention to areas of research that however important are not related to a marketable product or service. Such areas will probably be addressed only by publicly funded R&D programs. The following list of some research areas relevant to alternative agricultural practices illustrates the large number of research areas that are important to the

20 long-term economic and environmental performance of U.S. agriculture and that need public funds: Interactions among cropping pattems, tillage, soil fertility, and nonchemical pest control methods and the effects of such practices and interactions on farm profitability, water quality, and the long-term productivity of soil and water resources. The development and testing of biologically and ecologically sustainable production practices, man- agement support, and diagnostic tools that improve the options for managing soil nutrients, crop pests, or animal diseases. Effects of technological change on patterns of on-farm and rural employment as they relate to em- ployment and worker health and safety in agricultural and forest product industries. · Analysis and estimation of the costs of off-farm, nonpoint pollution efforts and policies and the effects of government programs and policies in shaping on- farm decisions that, in turn, significantly affect the attainment of goals for natural resource stewardship and environmental quality. Effects of technology and policy on the nutri- tional attributes of foods and on the health of the nation's population. Effects of alternative policies on the perform- ance of a given sector or across sectors (crop producers and livestock producers, for example) in relation to such issues as profitability, environmental protection, food safety, and human health. Diffusion of R&D Results The private sector's focus on areas of commercial interest is related to another aspect of industrial R&D: the proprietary nature of some research results. When scientific and technological advances have prospec- tive commercial applications, companies withhold publication of research advances as trade secrets or until they are assured of patent protection and applica- tion development. The proprietary considerations that underlie such reticence are reasonable and likely to remain strong. Globally, food product and agricultural input indus- tries have become more highly competitive; and a corporation's potential profitability as well as the markets its products can realistically penetrate in the United States and abroad will be determined by the corporation's ability to generate end use new informa I~ESTING IN RESEARCH lion in product design, obtain strong patent positions in emerging areas of technology, and improve its manufacturing processes. These factors are rein- forced by the trend toward greater corporate consoli- dation (see Appendix B). Federal Sector The federal governmentrecognizes its responsibil- ity as a major source of support forbasic research. The President's budget request for fiscal year (FY) 1990 states, in the special analysis of the research compo-  nents, that "even in an environment of continuing fiscal austerity, Federal support for basic research, especially at universities, is an important factor in generating new knowledge to ensure continued tech- nological innovation. It is an essential investment in the Nation's future. The Federal government has traditionally assumed a key role in support of basic research because the private sector has insufficient incentives to invest in such research" (Office of Management and Budget, 1989, p. J-8~. As stated above, the substantial increase in support for competitive grants proposed here would apply to the entire agricultural, food, and environmental sys- tem, not to specific applications or geographic areas. That increase should therefore be funded by the fed- eral government. A $500 MILLION INCREASE This proposal calls for a major expanded invest- ment to accelerate the rate of discovery in the agricul- tural, food, and environmental sciences. The pro- posed increased investment of $500 million is justi- fied on at least two counts: (1) agricultural research yields a high rate of return on investment, and (2) current funding for the agricultural research system cannot adequately support either the in-depth studies or the broad scope of science and technology neces- sary to maintain the competitiveness and sustainabil- ity of the overall agricultural, food, and environmental system. Investing in Agriculture Investment in agricultural research strengthens both agriculture and science because progress in agricul- ture and advances in science are reciprocal. Advances in science promote progress in agriculture; for ex

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL ample, new discoveries in genetics continue to lead to crop and animal improvements through breeding. Conversely, research on agricultural problems fre- quently provides the model system for basic scientific discoveries; for example, work on potato diseases led to the discovery of viroids previously unrecognized disease agents that attack humans, animals, and plants. Public investments in agricultural, food, and envi- ronmental research are also warranted because they have a well-documented high rate of economic return. The minimum annual rate of return a private company expects from plant capacity, inventory, or other in- vestments is 12 to 15 percent. In contrast, each public dollar (federal plus state) invested in agricultural re- search results in much higher returns to society through a net reduction in unit costs; for some investments, studies have shown that the returns can be as low as 45 percent and as high as 130 percent (Evenson, 1968; Evenson et al., 1979; Ruttan, 1982; Fox et al., 1987; Capalbo and Antle, 1988~. Such studies derive the return to food and agricultural research by estimating the reduction in costs of consumer products made possible by efficiency gains following technological innovations. The benefits from most categories of food and agricultural technological innovations are estimated to span 20 to 30 years. Hence, annual returns compound to several multiples of the initial Investment. The public receives this return on investment in agricultural research not in the form of a dividend check but at the supermarket checkout counter and in a myriad of everyday products and activities that improve the U.S. standard of living and quality of life. In the United States, food claims a smaller share of personal consumption expenditures than it does in any other nation just 17.4 percent in 1988 (Council of Economic Advisers, 198S, Table B-15, third-quarter estimate)- and the food is of high quality. Public R&D investments have other benefits as well. For example, the resulting expansion of the knowledge base makes it possible to respond to con- sumer demands for varied and high-quality produce year-round, low-fat and low-cholesterol products, more nutritious snacks, and microwaveable products. Like- wise, public R&D investment in research on resource conservation methods and food safety technologies can help accelerate the adoption of production prac- tices that are not only sustainable and less likely to pollute the environment but that are also helpful in minimizing the chances that microbiological orchemi- cal contaminants will create a food safety hazard. 21 In addition, food and agricultural research has a positive effect in terms of the distribution of wealth and quality of life among all members of society (White, 1987~. Poorer families andindividuals tend to spend a higher portion of their disposable income on food and pay a relatively smaller portion of income in taxes. Research and other public policies and pro- grams lower the cost of food, and in this way they provide a proportionately greater benefit to citizens on the lower end of the income scale.  Adequacy of Funding An annual increase of $500 million will enable the USDA's competitive grants program to meet two objectives: (1) attract new talent into agricultural, food, and environmental research and (2) expand the scope of agricultural, food, and environmental re- search. The size and duration of grants and the number of grants available need to be substantially increased, however, to achieve these objectives. The pool of talented scientists is large enough to put such an expanded program to good use. Three factors determine the amount of support needed for an expanded competitive grants program: (1) the size of the average adequate grant for each grant type, (2) the average adequate duration for each grant type, and (3) the minimum funding level that is desirable for each program area and capable of allow- ing all six program areas to be covered. The number of grants thus derived is then evaluated for its reasona- bleness, given the needs of the program areas, the number of investigators funded in the current com- petitive grants program, and the availability of scien- tists to seek the grants. The analysis shows that the overall $550 million program should support the fol- lowing: About 800 principal investigator grants for an average duration of 3 years. Totalannualexpenditure: $250 million. About 180 fundamental multidisciplinary team grants for an average duration of 4 years. Total annual expenditure: $150 million. · About 60 mission-linked multidisciplinary team grants for en average duration of 4 years. Total annual expenditure: $100 million. · Research-strengthening grants to institutions for programs and to individuals for fellowships. Total annual expenditure: $50 million.

22 Size and Duration of Grants The grants awarded by USDA's competitive re- search grants program have always been characterized by inadequate size and duration. This is one reason that the full range of scientific and engineering talent in the United S tales has not been more involved in research on food and agricultural problems. The average annual size of USDA competitive grant awards per principal investigator is now about $50,00~an amount too small in most instances to support research adequately. The cost of conducting food and agricultural research differs little from the cost of conducting research in other areas. In fact, expenses per investigator can be markedly higher in certain areas of food and agricultural research, in con- trast to areas in which less equipment and less field experimentation are necessary. In agricultural, food, and environmental research today, as in research in other areas of science, relatively few types of studies can be adequately undertaken with a research budget of less than $ 100,000 per year per principal investigator. To do high-quality research on a grant of $50,000 per year, most researchers must secure additional support or in-kind contributions from other sources. Those funds are often difficult or impossible to get or may require compromises in the research plan. Table 3.2 describes what a typical principal investi . . . ^. ~ INVESTING IN RESEARCH gator's grant budget would be under $46,000 and $ 100,000 awards. Table 3.3 delineates the personnel costs under both award levels to show how limited the options are with the smaller grant: A principal inves- tigagor could afford, for example, the assistance of either a graduate student, a technician, or partial sup- port of a postdoctoral fellow. In contrast, an award at the higherlevel would provide a principal investigator with sufficient funds to pay for research supplies and to support at least one graduate student, one postdoc- toral research fellow, or both. This provides a key means of attracting young scientists to careers in agricultural and food science. These figures are par- ticularly sobering since competitive grants are a major source of support for graduate students the nation's future scientists. A program's grants should not only be sufficient in size but they should also be large enough to compete for the attention of scientists currently working in other areas. The average size of currentUSDAgrants $50,00~compares unfavorably with the average sizes for National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health ~IH) grants, which are $69,600 and $154,900, respectively (see Table 3.4~. The proposed average grant size for the expanded USDA program - 100,000 per year per investiga- tor makes the USDA grants not only sufficient but also competitive with NSF and NIH grants. TABLE 3.2 What a USDA Competitive Grant Can Buy (in dollars per year) Average Grant Size Personnel Equipment Supplies Travel Publication  Miscel- Indirect laneousa Costs 46,000 23,000 4,600 5,800 1,100 500 4,700 13,200 (28,700- (11,300- (3,000- (1,000- (500- (100- (1,000- (7,800 60,000) 34,000) 9,000) 13,100) 2,000) 600) 15,000) 22,500) 100,000 46,000 11,300 17,000 1,600 800 1,600 27,800 (74,000- (24,800- (3,000- (5,000- (500- (500- (500- (11,000 139,000) 82,000) 29,000) 32,000) 7,000) 1,200) 3,500) 39,000) NOTE: The sum of all budget categories adds up to more than the average size of a grant because each grant does not allocate monies to all the budget categories. Only the supplies and indirect costs categories are allocated in all grants. Values in parentheses are ranges. This category includes equipment maintenance contracts, animal care facility fees, subcontracts to outside services, etc. SOURCE: Data are based on a review of 20 randomly selected grants and were compiled by the Competitive Research Grants Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1989.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL TABLE 3.3 Representative Personnel Expenditures under a USDA Competitive Grant (in dollars per year) 23 Average Grant Size Total Principal Post Personnel Investigator doctorate Graduate Under Student graduate Technician 46,000 (28,700 60,000) 100,000 (74,000 139,000) 23,000 (11,30~ 34,000) 46,000 (24,80~ 82,000) 7,800 (4,500 15,000) 13,000 (6,000 30,000) 23,000 (17,00~ 28,000) 28,000 (20,000 61,000) 13,000 (4,500 25,200) 15,500 (8,000 3l,000) 3,000 (1,000 5,000) 4,700 (1,500 12,000) 12,000 (2,900 21,000) 20,800 (10,00~ 30,000) NOTE: The sum of all personnel categories adds up to more than the total personnel category because each grant does not allocate monies to all the personnel categories. Values in parentheses are ranges. SOURCE: Data are based on a review of 20 randomly selected grants and were compiled by the Competitive Research Grants Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1989. TABLE 3.4 Comparison of Competitive Grant Programs Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Science Foundation, and National Institutes of Health, FY 1988 NIHc  Parameter USDAa NSF Total NIGMS Number of proposals1,4663,586 19,205 2,709 Number of grants funded339683 6,212 1,044 Percentage of proposals resulting in grants23.1%19.0% 32.3% 38.5% Amount requested (in millions of dollars) Amount awarded in new grants (in millions of dollars) Percentage of requested amount awarded Average amount of new awards (in thousands of dollars/year)$50.0 $339.2 $1,096.7 $37.2 10.9% $61.5 5.6% $69.6 $3,728.7$461.5 $1,098.5$167.4 29.0%36.0% $154.9$156.2 aData represent grants from the Competitive Research Grants Office of the Cooperative State Research Service. They do not include Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Program, Special Research Grants Program, or National Needs Graduate Fellowships. bData are fornew awards excluding continuation payments forawards made in previous years. Combined data from three of the six divisions of the Directorate of Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. Includes the Division of Biotic Systems and Resources, Division of Cellular Biosciences, and Division of Molecular Biosciences. CData represent grants to individual investigators, which are predominantly grants coded as ROT, and exclude continuation payments for awards made in previous years. Data from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) are a subset in the total for all of NIH. SOURCE: For USDA, adapted from data compiled by the Budget Office, Cooperative State Research Service. For NSF, adapted from data compiled by the Directorate of Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. For NIH, National Institutes of Health, Division of Research Grants. In press. NIH Data Book 1989. Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health.

24 The duration of grants is important, too, because only in a few selected areas of research can significant experimental results be attained within 1 or 2 years. Research in genetics and plant breeding that needs data from at least four or five growing seasons cannot rationally be proposed for completion within a 2-year grant period. Similarly, worthwhile projects that involve extensive field or clinical work require not only the support of skilled laboratory and field person- nel but also sufficient time. Another example of research that requires a longer time frame is the effort to break through long-standing barriers to knowledge of basic plant or animal growth processes or barriers to knowledge of ecosystems for sustainable agriculture- breakthroughs that are prerequisites to developing more efficient systems of production. Still another example of research that requires a longer time frame is the pursuit of economically viable new uses of existing crops a pursuit that may entail the applica- tion of genetic engineering techniques to develop new traits in plants, agronomic and production research and plant breeding to bring yields up to profitable levels, engineering and food processing research to I - ESTING IN RESEARCH develop efficient technologies for handling and con- verting materials, and changes in agricultural com- modity and conservation policies to accommodate the needed adjustments in regional cropping patterns. It is difficult to persuade talented scientists to invest time in preparing and conducting research programs when the time allowed for the research is too short for them to achieve meaningful results and when there is uncertainty about whether a grant will be renewed and the funding continued so Mat the work can be completed. It is also difficult to persuade new postdoctoral fellows to relocate if they can only be guaranteed partial support for 2 years. It is difficult, too, to conduct strong graduate-level research training programs if only short-term partial funding is avail- able. These programs generally run at least 3 and often 4 years, but the average duration of USDA competitive grants has been 2 years (see Table 3.59. The difficulty and uncertainty connected with plan- ning a graduate research program with only 2-year grants has discouraged many scientists and their stu- dents from applying for the short-term grants. The best solution is the most direct one. Average TABLE 3.5 Competitive Grant Funding per Principal Investigator in Agriculture, Biology, and Biomedicine, FY 1986 Total Size of Average Grant Average Award Agency Program Award Duration (millions of Sponsoring Agency Dollars (years) dollars) USDA Competitive Research 46,200b 2 Grants Office 48.8 NSF Directorate for 70,000 2-3248.9 Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences DOES Biological Energy 72,000 3-3.511.8  Research Division NIH 164,000 3-3.54,900.0 Values given for FY 1986 awards include both direct and indirect costs. Average for all grants awarded, including forestry and small business innovation awards. COnly plant biology- and biotechnology-related grants; the average grant size over the entire Directorate for Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences was $65,000. ~DOE, U.S. Department of Energy. SOURCE: National Research Council. 1987a. Agricultural Biotechnology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

RATIONALE FOR TIlE PROPOSAL TABLE 3.6 Goals for the Distribution of Funds with an Increase in the USDA Competitive Grants Program to $550 Million Goal Average Length Millions Percent of Granta Type of Grant of Dollars (years) Principal investigator 250 46 3 Fundamental multidisciplinary team 150 27 4 Mission-linked 100 18 4 multidisciplinary team Research-strengthening 50 9 3b aProgram administrators need maximum flexibility in detennining the appropriate length of grants; the table shows overall averages. gibe size and duration of research-strengthening grants, depending on the need for fellowship or program support. USDA competitive grants to principal investigators should be more nearly comparable in duration, as in size, to the grants made by NSF and NIH (2 to 3 and 3 to 3.5 years, respectively). This change alone will enable the USDA competitive grants program to go a long way toward attracting more top-notch, new sci- entific talent to the sciences basic to agriculture, food, and the environment. It is a necessary first step in meeting the research and educational challenges that lie ahead National Research Council, 1988b). Number and Size of Grants by Type Recent funding levels for the USDA competitive research grants program have ranged from $46.0 million in 1985 to $39.7 million in 1989 (see Table A.19), and the program has been able to award, on average, less than 400 grants each year. (See the box "Counting Grants," and for a comparison of USDA grants with those of NSF and NIH, see Table 3.4.) Each year, hundreds of technically meritorious pro- posals submitted to the USDA competitive grants program go unfunded, and if funding prospects were better, many more proposals would probably be sub- mitted. Given the number of high~uality proposals, the number, size, and duration of grants in the current program for even the limited program scope are en- tirely too small. Goals for the distribution of funding by type of 25 grant should apply to the total program, not to each of the six major program areas. The awarding of funds should be governed by the creativity that scientists demonstrate in proposing to tackle problems and by the relevance of the proposals, not by a priori distribu- tional goals. But the distribution of funds through the four types of grants would also depend, to some degree, upon the goals and priorities set for research. In a period when a major new area of science is first being explored like plant molecular biology prin- cipal investigator and fundamental multidisciplinary team grants will probably be the types most commonly  sought and awarded. When new plant biotechnolo- gies are being adapted and assessed for widespread commercial use, a different mix of grant types will be expected, including mission-linked multidisciplinary team grants. The distribution of funds by grant type and across the six major program areas will also be influenced by the priorities of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Growing concern about both the protection of water quality and changes in global climate, for example, might lead to an increase in the funding appropriated to the natural resources and the environment program area. Targets for the distribution of funds by type of go ant arepresentedinTable3.6. These are goals to strive for rather than binding rules, and they apply only to a fully funded program. The emphasis given to principal

26 INVESTING IN RESEARCH Counting Grants Within each fiscal year, funds are obligated to new grants, continuing grants, and supplemental funding. In counting and comparing the total number of proposals submitted, grants awarded, and grants funded, one runs the risk of mixing apples with oranges. Most grants cover a time period of more than 1 year, and a grant awarded for a 3-year period, for example, may appear in the statistics overtime either as one grant or as three grants, depending on whether it is a simple or a continuing grant. In the case of a simple grant, the full 3 years of funding are obligated in 1 fiscal year, so the grant appears only once in the statistics. But in the case of a continuing grant with incremental funding from different fiscal years, the grant counts over time as three grants, even though ~ went through only one competition (the first year). Supplemental funds are small additions to a grant to cover an unanticipated need to complete the research, such as the need to purchase a special instrument. Thus, statistics on the SUCCESS rate of grant applications can compare the number of proposals received and reviewed within a fiscal year with the number of new grants competitively awarded in that year, but not with the total number of grants funded during that same year. The USDA Competitive Research Grants Office makes simple grants and has few, if any, continuing grants. In contrast, both NSF and the institutes at NIH obligate roughly two-thirds of their funds to continuing grants in each fiscal year. The data presented in Table 3.4 include only proposals and grants that were competitively reviewed in FY 1988. investigator grants is appropriate because scientists- indeed, scholars as a group-work particularly well in individual creative endeavors, pursuing their own interests to achieve maximum progress. In the NSF, NIH, and USDA competitive research grants pro- grams, principal investigator grants have been, and continue to be, highly successful in advancing sci- ence, and they constitute the primary basis of research progress. They must be given a major emphasis in the expanded USDA competitive grants program. Assuming that a principal investigator grant repre- sents funding for one senior scientist, a student, and a technician for 3 years; that a fundamental multidisci- plinary team grant represents funding for at least two collaborating senior scientists and staff for 4 years; and that a mission-linked multidisciplinary team re- search grant represents funding for a team headed by four senior investigators for 4 years, then one can construct a table (see Table 3.7) showing the estimated number of grants and scientists that might be funded after the expanded competitive grants program reaches its fourth grant~ycle year. Since the size and duration of research-strengthening grants will vary depending on the need for fellowship or program support, their number is not included in the estimates in Table 3.7. Thus, a $500 million increase added to the current appropriation of approximately $50 million would provide approximately 1,042 grants to be awarded each year, not counting research-strengthening grants. The expenditure per "rant would very from an average of $312,000 per 3-year grant for a principal investiga tor ($104,000 per year) to $1.6 million per 4-year mission-linked multidisciplinary team research grant ($100,000 per year per investigator). Still excluding research-strengthening grants, an estimated 4,832 principal investigators or senior scientists would be supported in any 1 year more than five times the number under the current program (which supports about 850 scientists per year: about 425 scientists working in the first year of a 2-year grant and 425 in the second year). The more than doubling in the average annual size of grants of principal investigators would also allow the investigators to secure the help of several thousand more laboratory technicians, post-  doctoral assistants, and graduate students (see Tables 3.2and3.3~. In comparison, NIH awards about 6,000 grants annually. Theselastan average of3 years end provide about $160,000 annually per ~ant, generally to one principal investigator. About one-third of the propos- als submitted each year to NIH result in grant awards. NSF awards about 2,200 biosciences grants each year twice the number proposed for the expanded USDA program; about 20 percent of the proposals result in grant awards. (For comparative data for FY 1988, see Table 3.4.) The estimates in Table 3.7 of the funding available for grants do not account for the administrative cost of the program. If the administrative cost is 3 percent, then $15.5 million must tee subtracted from the award totals, removing funding equivalent to 150 investiga- tors from the total of 4,832 researchers.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL Availability of Scientists The current pool of talented scientists is more than sufficient to ensure a strong response to the expanded program by top-quality scientists. This conclusion is based on the size of the pool of agricultural and biological scientists who are expected to be interested in the expanded program. This group is already interested in the current program, as indicated by the high proportion of proposals judged meritorious that go unfunded each year. The proposed expansion in program scope and the increased size and duration of grants should secure their interest even more. In addition, the proposed expansion will also provide for graduate assistantships and postdoctoral appointments that will maintain a continuing influx of high-quality young scientists. Comparable data for physical and social scientists and engineers cannot be examined because the scope and emphasis of the current pro- gram do not attract their attention, but it is wholly reasonable to expect them to be highly interested in the 27 expanded program, as they are for comparable NSF and NIH programs. As Table 3.7 shows, the estimated 1,042 grants awarded per year would support 4,832 scientists. This represents 56 percent of the 8,654 agricultural scien- tists working in traditional agricultural science fields, mainly at land-grant universities (Table 3.8~. How- ever, the grants will also go to scientists outside the traditional agricultural science fields, just as grants in biomedicine go to scientists both inside and outside biomedical fields. To illustrate the potential involve- ment of scientists outside traditional agricultural sci- ences, consider only the 40,416 biological scientists (see Table 3.8~. If all 4,832 grants were awarded to these scientists, the US DA program would tee support- ing about 12 percent of them. But, of course, a mix of scientists will be supported. If the proposed program were to fund agricultural and biological scientists in the same proportions as at present (about 70 percent of the grants now go to scientists at land-grant universi- ties), then about 3,382 agricultural scientists (about 39 TABLE 3.7 Estimated Number of Grants and Scientists Supported through a USDA Competitive Grants Program of $550 Million Per Year Type of Grant Total New Funding (in millions of dollars) Total Award/GranP (in thousands of dollars) Number of New Grants/Year Number of Active  Grits. Number of Researchers Receiving Suppo~ear Principal investigator $250 Fundamental mulh disciplinary team Mission-linked mulii disciplinary team 100 Research strengtheningC 50 150 $312 833 1,612 NA 8002,400 2,400 180720 1,440 62248 992 NANA NA Total 550 1,042 3,368 4,832 Assumptions used in making calculations, in addition to the distribution of funding among grant types shown in Table 3.6, are as follows: (1) Principal investigator grants: one principal investigator per grant, $100,000 per year, average length of 3 years. (2) Fundamental multidisciplinary team grants: average of two principal investigators per grant, each at $100,000 per year; for this calculation average length is assumed to be 4 years. (3) Mission-linked multidisciplinary team grants: average of four principal investigators, each at $100,000 per year, average length of 4 years. bEstimates based on the number of new grants awarded each year times the average length of grant. CResearch-strengthening grants would vary in size and number and are not estimated here (NA, not applicable).

28 TABLE 3.8 Percentage of Scientists by Field at Four-Year Colleges and Universities Receiving Federal Science Agency Support, 1987 Field of ScienceaPercent Receiving and Selected Number atUSDA Disciplines Colleges/USDA Comp. NSF NIH within Fields Universities Funding Grants. Grants Grants Agricultural scientists8,654 63.33.2 4.8 1.6 Economics-related1,838 68.1NA 1.0 0 Plant biology-related2,511 63.6NA 6.0 1.5 Biological scientists40,416 9.5<0.1 15.8 45.6 Agriculture-related biological6,778 28.2<0.2 17.6 19.2 Plant-related1,098 48.0NA 29.0 5.5 Environmental scientists7,375 4.6<0.1 35.5 1.5 Hydrology and water resources293 23.2NA 27.3 0 All scientists185,746 6.80.2 12.1 18.5 NOTE: NA, Not available; percentage cannot be estimated on the basis of available information. aFields of science are as defined and grouped by the 1987 Survey of Doctorate Recipients conducted for the National Science Foundation by the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Research Council. bPercentage of scientists receiving USDA competitive grants is estimated on the basis of the following assumptions: 70 percent of an average of 425 grants awarded annually are received by agricultural scientists; 30 percent of grants are awarded to agriculture-related biological scientists. These assumptions are consistent with data provided by the Competitive Research Grants Office on the distribution of USDA competitive grant awards. These are not part of the land-grant university agricultural experiment station system. SOURCE: Compiled by Board on Agriculture, National Research Council, based on data front the National Science Foundation. 1988b. Table B-29 in Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States. NSF Report No. 88-331. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation; data were also provided by the Office of Scientific and Engineenng Personnel, National Research Council, derived from a special analysis of the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (1989). percent of their total) and about 1,450 biological scien- tists (about 3.6 percent of their total) would be sup- ported. In comparison, about 45 percent of the 40,416 biological scientists conducting research in 1987 re- ceivedNIHgrants. Therefore, the 1,042 grants awarded per year are still insufficient to fund agricultural scien- tists even to the level of NlH's funding of biological scientists and can involve biological scientists only to a very small extent. Thus, 1,042 grants per year should be seen, over the long term, as only a minimum number of grants for the USDA competitive grants program. SUPPORT WITH NEW MONEY This proposal for new funding for an expanded grants program comes at a time of fiscal stringency for INVESTING IN RESEARCH the United States. Yet, the needs and opportunities warrant the proposed action. This section presents three reasons for the need for new, not redirected, funding: (1) the consequences of the past 25 years of no real R&D growth for agriculture, (2) the need to retain the state-federal partnership, and (3) an evalu- ation of the trade-offs required by the fiscal realities. Consequences of the Lack of R&D Growth From l955 through 1965,USDA research budgets  grew in real terms, but from 1965 to the present, they have shown no real growth when corrected for infla- tion (see tables in Appendix A). Based on 1982 constant dollars, the purchasing power of USDA re

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL search appropriations in 1965 was $788 million dol- lars; in 1988 it was $778 million. Not only has funding for agricultural, food, and environmental research changed little in absolute terms during the past 25 years, but as a percentage of total federal appropriations for nondefense R&D it has also been unchanged-consistently 5 percent or less. Yet, the environment in which agriculture must operate has changed substantially. The macroeconomic condi- tions that effect the farmer end producer global trade policy, the federal budget, and the value of U.S. currency-have changed a great deal. The regulatory climate is different and in flux, which increases the complexity and expense of doing business throughout the agricultural and food sector. And science and technology continue to evolve, altering farming prac- tices, markets, the cost of inputs, and overall produc- tivity. The lack of real growth in the R&D sector of the agricultural, food, and environmental system has four mayor consequences. First, without the prospect of a sufficient and acces- sible source of funds, the agricultural, food, and envi- ronmental research system will find it difficult to bring younger scientists into the system and induce them to establish research careers there. This takes on greater significance since the large cohort of highly produc- tive scientists who have been in the system since the l950s will soon be retiring. Second, without growth, opportunities for gradu- ate education and research experiences within the systemcannotbemaintained. Yet,graduate education is a major product of the U.S. research system. Some would even argue that it is its most important product. Educational opportunities emphasizing agricultural research are the source of the skilled talent on which agriculture depends. Third, the no-growth condition of agricultural R&D funding has, in effect, decreased funding because simply "keeping up" requires spending more than normal inflation would suggest. This is partly because the entire character of science has changed, particu- larly science for agriculture and biology. Instruments, techniques, and supplies have become extremely sophisticated and accurate. as well as much more expensive, so it costs more to perform high-quality science today than it did 10 to 20 years ago. In addition, since many of the problems are now more multifaceted, more emphasis must be placed on mul- tidisciplinary work, and this, too, has raised costs, particularly in the field- and clinic-based studies nec 29 essary to understand the complex phenomena in- volved in agriculture. Moreover, intensifying the consequences of no R&D growth, the price indices for research generally run ahead of normal inflation indi- cators, thus depressing even further the purchasing power of a grant. Fourth, the lack of real growth in federal funding for R&D has meant that new scientific opportunities and necessary new programs have been funded through an internal redirection of federal funding, as is the case for intramural research programs within USDA.  Redirection of state funds and the securing of new state funds have also occurred through interactions within the state-federal partnership in research. In a very real sense, the agricultural research sector has already been redirecting its funds. However, new demands are being made on the research system. For example, new information and analysis are required within the regulatory environ- ment. Much more caution and thoroughness are required in developing and using new technologies, such as biotechnology for plants and animals, than have been required for conventional plant and animal breeding in the past. And there are research questions connected to the relationship between agriculture and the environment-for example, when the environ- ment is actually or potentially polluted by the contin- ued use of pesticides and natural and chemical fertil- izers, by agricultural and food processing wastes, and by leachates. Thus, when viewed from a number of perspectives, the current no-growth policy in agricultural R&D is putting at risk the vitality of the entire U.S . agricultural and food enterprise. State-Federal Partnership The partnership between the states and the federal government in research, development, and applica- lion related to the agricultural and food sector involves both state end federal agencies and scientists. Through the state agnculturalexperiment stations (SAESs) and Cooperative Extension Service systems, it involves the land-grant universities, the colleges of 1890, and the Tuskegee Institute; through the Agricultural Re- search Service, Cooperative State Research Service, Extension Service, and, to some extent, the Economic Research Service and U.S. Forest Service, it involves USDA. The partnership is strong and well estab- lished, and one of its key elements is collaboration in research and application. This collaboration is helped

30 by the fact that the federal government provides each state with formula funds that the state matches or exceeds. In 1988 the federal contribution of formula funds for research ($201.8 million) funded only 12 percent of the SAKS research program of $1,674 million (see Tables A.14 and A.15~. States use a large portion of their total research funds to do research that is relevant to the entire nation. Although valuable, this research has been done at the expense of state responsibilities for technology devel- opment and application, for site-specif~c research, and for stronger linkages between research and extension. One recent example of nationally relevant research by states is biotechnology research, which many states have emphasized and which, in most instances, is fundamental research. The significance of an ex- panded USDA competitive grants program is that it would use federal funds to provide major necessary support for fundamental research of national value, thereby lessening some of the competition for state funds, which could then appropriately be applied, in part, to state and regional problems. The state-federal partnership has been, and will continue to be, a key factor in converting research results, whether fundamental or applied, into tech- nologi~es and knowledge that are usable by producers and processors and then, through the cooperative extension system, in getting them applied. There are no excess funds in this partnership for doing this essential job. As noted elsewhere in this proposal, if funds are taken away from the partnership or redi- rected to other activities-even to an expanded com- petitivegrantsprogram thenation's capacity to keep research, development, and application flowing will be diminished. Fiscal Realities Finally, there is the matter of fiscal realities: Is funding available? Where would it come from? What are the implications of shifting funds from one pro- gram to another? At this time of fiscal constraint, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government must reduce the national debt and at the same time set priorities among competing federal expenditures to enact programs that maintain the welfare, infrastruc- ture, security, and continued economic growth of the United States. They must also address public con- cerns for maintaining global competitiveness, increas INVESTING IN RESEARCH ing the safety and nutritional quality of the food supply, and protecting environmental resources. The goal of simultaneously reducing expenditures and attending to essential national needs requires fiscal prudence. Trade-Offs Given the current era of fiscal constraints, this proposal for an increased investment in the agricul- tural, food, and environmental research system re- quires that several possible trade-offs be considered.  The $500 million for competitive grants could come from sacrificing other USDA research pro- grams. Can some current research programs be dis- continued in an effort to strengthen competitively supported research? The necessary funds could be directed to re- search from other USDA budget categories. Com- modity price supports, for example, have decreased from $26 billion to $11 billion during the pest 3 years, as U.S. agricultural export prices have improved. Should $500 million of those savings and of future budgetary savings be redirected toward research, or should they be directed toward reducing the national debt, toward some combination of the two, or toward progress outside of agriculture? The funds couldbe shifted from other parts of the federal budget into USDA. Does the consistently high return on the agricultural research investment over- ride the need for funds in other areas of national interest? The investment in agricultural, food, and envi- ronmental research could be deferred until deficit re- duction has been achieved. But investing new funds now can hasten future economic growth and scientific benefits. What will be gained-or lost by postpon- ing the investment? Redirection within the USDA Research Budget As discussed above, the USDA research budget has not increased in real purchasing power for the past 25 years. Thus, agricultural research is already substan- tially underfunded, given the continuing needs and the many new needs. It follows that a redirection of funds within an appropriation that is already too small will not allow the agricultural, food, and environmental research system to address fully the challenges con- fronting it. However, some might argue that current

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL funding is less than suitably used. Atleast three points should be made in response. First, many observers believe that the political prospects for redirection are nil to modest. Second, any funds derived from redirection within the USDA research budget would diminish the capac- ity of the research and delivery system itself. It is this very system that is responsible for capturing the re- sults from competitively funded, formula- and state- funded, and other research, formulating them into technologies and applications and then delivering them to users. Redirection of funding would under- mine not only the system's capacity for innovation but also continuing efforts to strengthen its research capa- bilities. Thus, taking funds from the research and delivery system would diminish it precisely when it needs to be more effective. Third, redirection runs the risk of destroying some of the"muscle" of quality research in intramural and formula-funded research while attempting to cut out any 4`fat.'' The proposed increase in funding for competitive O ~ research grants is justified. This proposal strongly recommends against the redirection of funds within the USDA research budget for the reasons given above. If no growth in the USDA research budget is possible, then decisions to redirectUSDA's research funds are judgments that elected and other public officials may choose to evaluate. Investment of Subsidy Savings As U.S. agriculture gradually returns to economic health and as global commodity prices increase, the federal budget appropriations currently needed for price support programs may be released. If that occurs, pant of this funding should be reinvested in research programs that can strengthen the knowledge that supports the production of agricultural commodi- ties and the food and fiber industries of the country. Such redirection is appropriate because the research will directly benefit those commodities: the increased knowledge will be the basis on which profitability is increased and new uses for agricultural commodities are created. Investment Using Non-USDA Funds Beside reinvesting savings from the decreases in subsidy payments, another possibility is reinvestment from other nonresearch portions of the federal budget. 31 This alternative may be possible, but it would require major budgetary decisions and analyses that are out- side the scope of this proposal. There is also the possibility of reinvesting other parts of the nondefense federal R&D budget into this expanded program. While possible, this would be a difficult and unreasonable thing to do at the lame the nation as a whole is trying to reinvest in its research infrastructure and the federal government is commit- ted both to doubling the NSF budget and to funding  major research initiatives in relevant areas, such as the human genome project. Investment Now For three reasons, a $500 million increase in re- search funding is needed at this time. The first reason is economic, the second is scientific, and the third combines both. First, agricultural research gives a high return on investment (see"Investing in Agriculture" in the section "A $500 Million Increase" above3, and the high return strongly confirms the economic value for the nation of investing in agricultural and related research. In addition, investment in the environmental component of the system will have a substantial direct monetary value as less expensive and more effective environ- mental management systems are used (involving more effective, less environmentally problematic fertiliz- ers, insecticides, and herbicides and their integrated systems). Furthermore, money spent ensuring envi- ronmental quality for the agricultural and food system will keep problems from building and will thus save on future remedial costs. A second reason for increasing research funding by $500 million now is the combination of existing pro- gram needs and scientific opportunities applicable to agriculture: Increased funding can be used to major advantage. The necessary scientific talent in the physical, biological, engineering, and social sciences as well as in agriculture and related disciplines is also available and ready to compete for this new funding. Moreover, USDA has shown that it can professionally administer and manage a competitive grants program. The third reason that this substantial increase should be enacted in a single year is a reflection of the broadened scope of agricultural, food, and environ- mental research and of the importance of sustained agricultural advancement for the U.S. economy. The agribusiness complex contributes an estimated 18

32 percent of the gross national product (Harrington et al., 1986~. Farming itself accounts for 2 percent; the '`upstream" industries that supply farming equipment, feed, seed, fertilizers, and financing account for about 2 percent; and the "downstream" industries that retail, transport, process, and manufacture products from the commodities supplied by farms account for the re- maining 14 percent. In addition, the ties between farming and its linked industries continue to increase because the value added to agricultural products be- yond the farm continues to increase. For example, the activity in `'downstream" industries, corrected for inflation, doubled from 1960 to 1980. In 1987 the U.S. gross national product was $4.5 trillion (Council of Economic Advisers, 1989~. The 18 percent contributed by the agribusiness complex would be roughly $815 billion. This means that the estimated $1.04 billion in 1990 federal obligations for agricultural R&D (Office of Management and Budget, 1989) represents a research investment of less than 0.13 percent of agriculture's annual contribution to the gross national product. In light of the value of the agricultural complex to the U.S. economy, a major investment in research seems appropriate. The in- crease will thus provide substantial economic benefits for the nation. Given the overall fiscal problems facing the nation, the appropriation of the full $500 million increase may not be possible in 1 year. Even so, a commitment of this magnitude is essential, and any stepwise increase in funding should reach the full increased amount as soon as possible, preferably within 3 years. The actions taken by the federal government should also firmly state the goal of increasing the investment in research through competitive grants. A CENTRAL ROLE FOR USDA The competitive grants program proposed here should be the responsibility of USDA. The specific organizational environment for the proposed expanded program within USDA is analyzed in Chapter 6. This section discusses some of the reasons for locating the program in USDA and then surveys the kinds of links the expanded program could be expected to have with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the SAESs, the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) system, and other federal agencies. First, the expanded program should be placed in USDA because the U.S. Congress has designated it as INVESTING IN RESEARCH the federal agency responsible for advancing the agri- cultural sciences and developing technology appli- cable to food, fiber, and forest product industries and for responding to issues-such as environmental concerns related to the production and processing sectors. The department has special responsibilities and expertise in agricultural production, food safety, environmental protection, and human nutrition. Its . . . ~ . mission agencies ant programs focus on conserving resources, tracking nutritional status, enforcing qual- ity standards and grades for food and forest products,  guarding against the spread of disease, managing forests and wildlife, and helping marketing systems work more efficiently. The department administers several programs that develop new knowledge and technology and other programs that help refine tech- nology and transfer it into widespread use. Second, USDA has responsibility for the national laboratories for agricultural research (ARS), for fed- eral agricultural regulatory and economic analytical services, and-in cooperation with the states-for the network and capacity for transferring technology to productive use. That network includes the ARS, the SAESs, and CES. It also extends outward to other federal agencies. Third, USDA has proved itself able to manage a competitive grants program characterized by high quality, timeliness, and professionalism. Linkages with ARS The mission of ARS is to develop, refine, and adapt science and technology to advance USDA's basic goals. Well over half of the federal government's current investment in food and agricultural R&D goes to support ARS research basic, applied, and mul- tidisciplinary. Ongoing ARS programs correspond closely to the proposed six major program areas. ARS scientists can participate in the expanded competitive grants program by applying for grants, by identifying the mission-linked research needs and priorities of USDA and other federal agencies, and by serving on peer review panels. ARS scientists and engineers have experience in key engineering disci- plines, instrumentation, new product and process development, natural resource stewardship, and other critical areas. Moreover, ARS scientists are among those most familiar with mission agency needs and with ongoing government regulatory, grading, and related program activities.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL Linkages with State Agricultural Experiment Stations SAESs encompass those faculty and scientists at land-grant and similarly chartered universities who are involved in the agricultural research system and who generally receive part of their support from state and federal funds appropriated to the SAESs. A major fraction of all public funding for research on agricul- ture and food is spent through the SAESs, and the combined state and federal support for the SAESs is approximately three times the federal support for ARS (see tables in Appendix A). The work of the SAESs involves basic research on fundamental biological processes, more applied work on the problems and issues confronting agricultural and food production systems, and technology development and application (aided by the CES and the private and federal sectors). Many SAKS scientists have combined teaching, re . . . search, or extension appointments. Strong collaborative relationships exist between SAKS and ARS scientists throughout the country. Many ARS scientists are located at universities and may even have adjoining laboratories with their SAKS colleagues. The role of the SAESs and their participating scientists has become broader, not narrower, in recent years. They are involved not only in their traditional responsibilities in agricultural research but also in laboratory-based fundamental research such as mo- lecular and cellular genetics, and they interact closely with non-SAES biological scientists. Concurrently, SAKS scientists are also involved in the assessment and implementation of agricultural policy issues. For example, throughout the SAKS, extensive work has been done to respond to issues on water quality, pesticide use, and the competitiveness of agriculture. In addition to competing for grants from the ex- panded competitive grants programs, SAKS scientists will have important roles to play in serving on com- petitive grants program advisory committees and peer review panels, defining program priorities, identify- ing mission-linked research issues, and reviewing multidisciplinary research proposals. Important but sometimes ignored in the university- based agricultural research system are the scientists who are not operationally within the SAKS system but who are interested in and contribute to research impor- tant to agriculture. This group includes scientists at the land-grant universities outside the colleges of 33 agriculture, human ecology, and veterinary medicine and scientists at non-land-grant universities, both public and private. This group must be seen as potential collaborators with USDA in developing and applying new results and technologies to the agricul- tural, food, and environmental system. Linkages with the Cooperative Extension Service The CES, assisted by the Extension Service of the USDA, brings research applications and education to  users and communicates users' special needs to the research community. The CES uses a network of extension specialists and county-based agents who are supported through combinations of federal formula funds, state funds, and county or regional funds. This confederation of extension agents is unique in provid- ing the communication and education link between users and researchers. In an expanded competitive grants program, the CES system would have a particularly critical role in mission-linked team research projects. These projects would be multidisciplinary, would range from basic laboratory research to applied laboratory and field work, and would include a knowledge and technology transfer component. Because many SAKS scientists have partial extension responsibilities, they are also well positioned to help plan and carry out both the applied research and the technology transfer compo- nents of mission-linked multidisciplinary team re- search. The CES has communications networks for foster- ing and using new knowledge, refined technologies, and improved production methods. Extension person- nel can also help recognize and pursue opportunities for partnerships between the public and private sectors and for dialogue among state and federal agency . . . . . . personne , interested citizens, private organizations, and industrial leaders. Linkages with Other Federal Agencies There is substantial cooperation and communica- tion between USDA research agencies and most other federal research agencies. The Joint Council for Food and Agricultural Sciences, in particular, has been helpful in fostering interagency communication about overall scientific activities and priorities, and the Users Advisory Board provides helpful analyses. An expanded USDA competitive grants program will

34 have a more important government-wide role in ad- vancing the science and technology capability relative to the needs of several mission agencies (e.g., the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for food safety, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for environ- mentally safe methods of pest control, and the U.S. Department of Energy for biological energy sources and waste management). As this occurs, USDA will have more opportunities to receive input from active scientists in other agencies and to coordinate research activities and exchange research information-par- ticularly with NSF and NIH- in the day-to-day plan- ning and administration of competitively awarded programs. THE ROLE OF COMPETITIVE GRANTS Competitive grants are not the only mechanism for distributing the new $500 million allocation for re- search, but they are best suited to stimulating new research activity in specific areas of science. This section discusses the federal R&D funding mecha- nisms and covers in detail the particular advantages of competitive grants. Federal R&D Funding Mechanisms The federal investment in agricultural, food, and environmental research is distributed by four different funding mechanisms: intramural research conducted by USDA staff, formula funds to the SAKS s, grants for special R&D initiatives, and competitive grants. Intramural Funding Intramural funding is the principal form of support for ARS, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Economic Research Service and provides their long-term, mis- sion-oriented research activities with the stability that is essential for continuity of effort. Agricultural and food research activities that re- quire a steady effort over many years to obtain signifi- cantresults are often pursued most affectively through intramural and formula funding mechanisms. Ex- amples include long-term breeding programs that select and breed plants and animals for desirable traits over several generations, soil and water conservation re- search that must focus on how to stabilize land or protect water quality, and nutrition research on the INVESTING IN RESEARCH effects of dietary patterns on physiological develop- ment as children move into and through adolescence and in the aging population. In addition to long-term research projects and re- search studies that require extended monitoring pro- grams, intramural funding also maintains the research talent and infrastructure necessary to respond rapidly to national or regional emergencies, such as pest outbreaks. Formula Funding Formula funds are federal allocations to the SAKS  in each state and territory. These allocations require matching state support. The formula refers to the distribution of the federal payments to each of the states and territories. Congress last revised the for- mula in 1955. (See Appendix A for details of the formula.) Formula funding provides a relatively stable re- source base and is an important source of support for a variety of important activities, including long-term studies; for the more applied research that helps states meet their responsibilities for food safety, nutrition, pesticide safety, and animal care and disease preven- tion and for assisting states working on multistate, regional problems; as well as for graduate student training. Special Grants Special research grants are a flexible and adaptive funding mechanism to target new resources to pariicu- larly pressing problems that are often specific to a single state or region of the country. For example, agronomic or pest problems would demand in-depth knowledge of the local or regional production prac- tices as well as knowledge of natural resource condi- tions and limitations, pest pressures, and economic and policy considerations. Such problems typically demand swift action and may be only periodic. These grants generally last for a finite period of time, some- times only 1 year, and they are usually specifically identified in the appropriations bill for USDA re- search. Competitive Grants Competitive grants are the proven and most appro- priate mechanism to attract and retain people from throughout the nationts scientific community to do

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL top-quality fundamental research and the more ap plied research in promising areas of science and tech nology. Grants are awarded on the basis of quality and technical merit, as judged by experienced scientists serving on peer review panels. The peer review process is used to select research that is both relevant and of high scientific quality. The annual cycle of proposals and awards keeps the focus on research that insufficiently funded, or not awarded. Funding for is at the forefront of science and technology. lengthy research, such as that for long-te~m plant, Research in genetics, chemistry, economics, and animal, social, and ecological studies, is sometimes applied mathematics are examples of areas that are not more difficult to secure through competitive research location-specific and in which the pursuit of agricul- grants; thisis usually deals with through a combination rurally related basic research can contribute to future of renewal grants and institutional support. Securing advances in agriculture across the nation. support for multidisciplinary work through competi Competitive grants have been used with high effec- live grants is allegedly difficult because the evaluation tiveness by NSF and NIH. The strengths of the paradigms often come from single disciplines end the competitive "rants funding mechanism are elaborated scientists on peer review panels may from single in a subsequent section. ~~ ~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 35 can be particularly onerous when the duration of grants is too short, as is now the case with the USDA competitive grants program. There is also some uncertainty and anxiety about the continuity of fund- ing, particularly at the time of renewal; some institu- tions try to handle this uncertainty by providing bridg- ing support in the event that the renewal is late, FY 1988 Distribution of Funds In FY 1988, the combined research outlays for ARS and the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) totaled $911.5 million. Of these outlays, $559.5 million (61 percent) went to ARS and $352 million (39 percent) went to CSRS (see Table A.5~. For CSRS, FY 1988 expenditures totaled $383.5 million (see Table A.14), slightly higher than the FY 1988 budges obligations (see thebox"Appropriations, Obligations, and Expenditures" in Appendix A). Of these expenditures, formula funds accounted for $201 .8 million (53 percent), competitive grants $45.4 million (12 percent), and special grants $51.8 million (14 percent) (see Table A.14~. The Advantages of Competitive Grants The competitive grants mechanism is advocated in this proposal because it has three major strengths: Responsiveness and flexibility · Talent and openness Balance among funding mechanisms Before discussing the strengths, one should note the reservations some people have about the competi- tive grants mechanism. Some believe that an inordi- nate amount of time is required to prepare applications for competitive grants and their renewals; this burden disciplines and the scientists on peer review panels may not be equally knowledgeable in all the disci- plines covered by the proposal. Some people are also concerned that competitive grant research programs avoid applied research. That concern is understandable and was unavoidable in the past because competitive grants from NSF are in-  tended for research at the forefront of a discipline and not for mission-oriented research; and the mission of NIH competitive grants is biomedical, not agricul- tural, problems. In an expanded competitive grants program in USDA, the mission will be agriculture, and the distinction between basic and applied research should not be of concern. The distinction should be between high-quality and relevant research, on the one hand, and pedestrian and inappropriate research, on the other. In agricultural, food, and environmental research, many of the more interesting problems are in settings that have en applied character (such as ecosys- tem studies in relation to sustainable agriculture); these kinds of studies are intended to be funded under the proposed competitive grants program within USDA. Some of the conditions noted above, such as the time required to prepare competitive grant proposals and the risk of losing continuing support, are neces- sary to ensure the highest quality of science. Other conditions, such as those dealing with multidiscipli- nary and applied research, can be suitably dealt with by new approaches like those presented in this pro- pos~. Notwithstanding the reservations, competitive grants are the preferred way to award the funds for the research envisioned by this proposal.

36 Responsiveness and Flexibility A key strength of the competitive grants funding mechanism is responsiveness end flexibility. Respon- siveness and flexibility jointly are the ability to iden- tify and support potentially important areas of re- search areas that are emerging but that have not yet been designated significant. Responsiveness means being hospitable to-and strongly encouraging-work at the forefront of an area of science. The basis of the competitive research grants system is doing a definable piece of work within the bounds set by the grant's funds and duration. Virtually by definition, competitive grants programs have the capacity to be responsive. Future funding can be redirected without unduly disrupting previously funded research studies. Over relatively short periods the program can significantly and systematically change the emphasis on the area of research to be funded. Its commitments are for finite lengths of time and for relatively small amounts of money. Thus, such a program is less likely to get locked into supporting research whose relevance to significantproblems might become marginal as advances are made elsewhere in science or as social needs or economic opportunities change. It can afford to support risky but potentially promising work and to make awards to promising but not yet fully established younger scientists. A competitive grants program can also be respon- sive to changing USDA mission agency needs by making additional or new grant support available in particular program areas. Such needs can be high- lighted in annual program announcements, and efforts can be made to notify the science and engineering communities of the new program areas. Notwith- standing the desire to respond to new opportunities and to change as needs dictate, frequent and extensive shifts in priorities should be avoided because continu- ity and stability are hallmarks of high-quality science. A further aspect of responsiveness is the capacity to promote communication and links across scientific disciplines and between program sectors. Such com- munication and links are built into the administra- tive processes of the program at every stage. People from various disciplines and from all segments of the scientific community academia, industry, and gov- emment are necessarily brought together to discuss and refine program priorities, establish proposal re- view criteria, and serve on peer review panels. Scien- tists who submit grant proposals receive constructive critiques on their proposals from peer review panels WRESTING IN RESEARCH end administrative staff. Even the process of develop- ing proposals particularly those involving multidis- ciplinary team research requires considerable dia- logue. Talent and Openness In addition to its responsiveness and flexibility, an expanded USDA competitive grants program will have the advantage of being able to attract additional scientists to the agricultural, food, and environmental  system and to retain them. It will do so by expanding opportunities for scientists who are currently involved in agricultural research; by drawing productive, proven scientists from other areas into agricultural research; by attracting and retaining new, younger scientists into agricultural research at the beginning of their careers; by removing financial and other barriers impeding women, underrepresented minorities, and disabled individuals and providing them with greater opportunities for research; and by encouraging and supporting work across all the program areas areas in which many scientists both inside and outside agriculture are strongly interested. An expanded competitive grants program offers an important new opportunity for top-quality scientists currently involved or interested in agricultural re- search to be significantly more involved. This is particularly important for scientists who are involved with USDA's current program: the grants are too limited in funds and time; · scientists working in plant biology: funding from both USDA and NSF is altogether too limited; scientists involved in animal-oriented studies: the biomedical programs of NIH are not applicable to their research unless the animal biology they are studying is congruent with the human and medical focus of NIH; and · scientists wishing to study environmental, engi- peering, markets and trade, or social and policy issues: normal funding sources from USDA are not available for those scientists outside the ARS-CSRS research system, and for those who are already part of that system, funding is limited. New talent will be attracted to research important to agriculture because people throughout the science and engineering communities both new, younger scientists and established scientists will,perhaps for the first time, seriously consider how they could

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL participate in agricultural research and, reciprocally, how their research activities could advance the sci- ence and technology interests relevant to U.S. agricul- ture, food, and the environment. An illustration of this kind of successful involvement is NIH's use of com- petitive grants to attract and retain researchers for biomedical science. NIH grants are one of the main reasons for the exceptional advances recently made in understanding molecular and cellular genetics and in elucidating the biology of growth and development- advances that lie behind the development of the entire biotechnology industry. The competitive grants approach is successful for biomedicine and should be equally so for agriculture. For that to occur, however, it will be necessary to make the size and length of the grants competitive with other grant forms and thereby secure the interest and com- mitment of researchers. As important as attracting and retaining new talent is the need to encourage and support members of groups that have not traditionally been part of the agricultural, food, and environmental system: women, underrepresented minorities, and disabled individu- als. Relative to their proportion of the general, univer- sity, or research community populations, these groups have been significantly underrepresented in the scien- tific disciplines involved in agriculture. Evidence suggests that many women, members of other underrepresented groups, disabled individuals, and young scientists trained in basic science depart- ments outside colleges of agriculture are discouraged from pursuing careers in food and agricultural scien- tific disciplines because of the lack of financial support in the system and, in some cases, because of their sense that greater professional challenges can be found elsewhere (National Research Council, 1988b). This proposed grants program would help significantly in addressing this need. Thus, a competitive grants mechanism gives scien- tists and scholars in public and private universities, government laboratories, and not-for-profit research locations a fair and equitable chance to obtain addi- tional support. The benefits of increased funding would be distributed widely. The openness of the competitive grants mechanisms is important for at- tracting top-quality scientists to agricultural research. Balance among Funding Mechanisms Each of the four funding mechanisms now support- ing agricultural, food, and environmental research has 37 a valuable role to play in ensuring that the vital basic (or fundamental), applied, technology development and transfer, crisis driven, and long-term forms of research are being met. Different needs are best met by different funding mechanisms. The most immedi- ate ways of doing this are to (1) attract new talent into the research system and (2) help active scientists take greater advantage of the developments rapidly occur- ring across all fields of science. Both of these can best be done with competitive grants, yet the presentUSDA competitive grants program now awards far too few  grants to fully perform the task. Moreover, at present there is marked imbalance across federal funding mechanisms (see the section "Federal R&D Funding Mechanisms" above). In terms of total public and private support for all components of the agricultural, food, and environ- mental research system, competitive grants play an even more modest role. Total support for agricultural, food, and environmental R&D within ARS, CSRS, and the SAKS s was about $2.2 billion in 1988, but only 2.5 percent of that was awarded competitively. (The $2.2 billion includes about $900 million from USDA and about $1.3 billion from state governments, com- modity organizations, and product sales and other private sources.) Other agencies with a strong record in advancing science and meeting national needs allocate a much larger portion of their R&D expenditures through the competitive grants mechanism: NIH allocates 83 percent and NSF allocates 90 percent (see Table 3.9~. The applied, regional, and site-specific nature of many agricultural, food, and environmental research and engineering issues makes it appropriate for a consid- erable portion of total agricultural research funding- perhaps one-third to two-thirds, depending on the area of science-to continue moving into the system through federal and state formula funds and other noncompeti- tive mechanisms. The $1.2billion in state government and private support to SAESs is outside the pool of funds that might be allocated competitively and na- tionally.~ One way to redress the imbalance is to secure more competitively awarded support for agriculture from other agencies (principally NSF and NIH). Although support from these sources has been crucially impor- tant in advancing basic science in fields key to agricul- ture, food, and environmental research, it is generally directed at priorities and applications other than those most critically needed to advance the agricultural and food sector. In addition, competition for these funds

38 - Cq Lo - - o o W Cq o I: ·_ - 00 An - A: ~o4 o o W m CQ .~ Cal I: ~4 an  be it: TIC w Cat hi; . ~ L ·~= ~ hi O == ~ O ~ ~ ~ W C_) 0 As NEW ~ L W ~ 5 ~ := .c Cat G) ~ O (V L4 ~ PA C: - , A ~ ~ o oo 0 oo oo ~ ~ oo oo ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~oo o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C~ _ tn _ rA VJ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 ~ O~ ,,8, c,> ~ 1 ~o' 8 1 1 c<, ~ <) ~: L4 =4 ~0 c: L4 1 Y~ l 3 ! _ l ~ L4 P~ - o  C) -° ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ 1 C~ ~ 00 ~ w) 1 8 '~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ', ~ _. I ', tn 1 ~ w) °° ~ ~1tn C-1 == <) ^ a~ ~c) 2 ~ ~ ~y~ CO _ 3 ,, ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ° sm~o C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4' ln 00 00 00  8 ~ ~ ~ =, ~ ~Co~ t ~oo l . ~_ C ~W .= ~ o ~ ~o e ~ U ~u `, - E~ D ,~ f: , ~ - 0 00 a ~ Z ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ =-.s ~ _4 0 C~ O Cts ~ _ _ U) ~ ~ C3= E ~ _ £ ~ ~ P! 2_= e U' ~ o Z. ~ ~ ~ X o 9 ~ '~ ~ V, ~ C ~ ~C o, o~ - y ~ C ;, == .. 3 ~ _ _ ~ ~ . 3 5 E ~ 2 ~c ~ ~ c' 5 ~ 5 5 8 E E ', 5 ~, E e g 8 ~

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL is increasing. Much of the knowledge and techniques discovered by scientists who received NSF and NIH grants can be applied to agricultural research. An expanded USDA grants program will increase the application of this new knowledge to address the needs of the agricultural, food, and environmental system. Reciprocally, scientific developments brought about by USDA-supported work will advance funda- mental knowledge, for example, by increasing the understanding of genetic, physiological, and ecologi- cal processes. A second way to obtain a better balance among funding mechanisms is to redirect funding currently in the intramural, formula fund, or special grants pro- grams to competitive grants. But such redirection, as noted earlier, would likely damage the agricultural research system as a whore. Furthermore, es problems become more complex and as more rapid responses are needed to keep up with global competition, it will be essential to keep the ARS, SAKS, and CES sectors as fully funded as possible, lest their ability to accept and use new knowledge, develop new technologies, and help with technology application decreases even further. It has been suggested, for example, that USDA might allocate all its research support through a na- tional competitive grants program. If that were done, just under one-half of total state and federal agricul- tural research support would be competitively awarded. But doing that would require the ARS to close and would completely eliminate formula funds and spe- cial grants. That would be a mistake. Competitive grant program expenditures should grow relative to those of the intramural, formula, and special grant funding mechanisms but should neither replace nor dwarf them. Given the needs and opportunities, at least 35 percent of the total USDA investment in R&D should be awarded nationally through competitive grants. Although 35 percent for competitive grants is consid- erably lower than the percentages in NSF and NIH, it is more than seven times USDA's current level of 5 percent. ATTENTION TO MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH Multidisciplinary research is the term used in this 39 common research problem and that has an integrated plan of study. A multidisciplinary project requires research "in" the disciplines and at the same time draws research and results "from" the disciplines to form a study that integrates the disciplines and results to examine systematically the various facets as well as the totality of the problem. As used here, multidisci- plinary research designates both cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, even though the three terms have somewhat different meanings. The attention given to multidisciplinary research in the proposed expanded program for agricultural, food, and environmental research is based on the premise that many of the most significant, interesting, and  difficult problems be they fundamental or mission- linked-are inherently multifaceted. Four examples illustrate the point: · Understanding the dietary patterns appropriate for good health requires research in biochemistry, physiology, genetics, nutrition, psychology, and soci- ology. Understanding plant pathogenesis requires re- search in plant pathology, biochemistry, plant biol- ogy, cell biology, ecology, and population biology. Developing sustainable animal agricultural sys- tems requires research in agronomy and soil science, ecology and ecosystems analysis, animal nutrition, population and community biology, economics, and other disciplines. Controlling the postharvest losses of crops in- volves a combination of the ability to resolve engi- neering problems in the harvesting, sorting, and re- frigerating equipment and an understanding of certain aspects of plant breeding, genetics, pathology, nutri- tion, toxicology, and plant science; only such a com- bination can address crop quality, control of posthar- vest diseases, nutrient loss during storage, and control and detection of mycotoxins. . To realize the full potential of science and technol ogy in agricultural, food, and environmental research, the USDA competitive grants program should direct up to 50 percent of its support to multidisciplinary research (through multidisciplinary team grants, both fundamental and mission-linked). This emphasis is meant to stimulate more multidisciplinary team re search and to strongly encourage it among senior scientists. proposal to describe research that combines expertise The word team in multidisciplinary team research from two or more disciplines into a shared focus on a implies that there is more than one senior scientist or

40 principal investigator. As described earlier in this chapter, fundamental multidisciplinary team grants are conceived of as the involvement of, on average, at least two senior scientists as principal investigators; and multidisciplinary mission-linked teams would involve about four senior scientists (see Table 3.7~. But the terms team and multidisciplinary may also suggest the concept of a research center. That associa- tion is incorrect, however, because center implies a larger research group, a more permanent or long-term association, and a physical facility, whereas the mul- tidisciplinary team grants proposed for the USDA competitive grants program are intended to go to small teams of probably two to four scientists and to extend for no longer than one grant cycle, with the possibility of one renewal. The association of multidisciplinary team with center should be avoided. Both types of multidisciplinary "rants proposed for the competitive grants program will involve multidis- ciplinary team research and will address fundamental science and engineering questions. The difference between them is that fundamental multidisciplinary grants should be for pioneering research at the fore- front of science and engineering disciplines. Mission- linked projects should address major science and engineering questions and perform basic research on understanding the phenomena being studied. They are also to link the work with more applied problems. Examples of mission-linked projects might be re- search that addresses both the source of the commod- ity and the market for a new product by studying the enzymatic, microbiological, or genetic basis for new uses of commodity materials or by combining agro- nomic, economic, and ecosystem research to deter- mine the optimum balance of components for a more sustainable and profitable crop and animal agricul- tural system. The key aspect of mission-linked multidisciplinary grants-their direct connection to the more applied problems-can be facilitated, and in some cases en- sured, if teams applying for grants of this type are required to include people from the applications sec- tor. Such people could be from private industry (e.g., from a food processing company), from government (e.g., a department of agriculture or health), or from a land-grant university (e.g., from cooperative exten- sion). In multidisciplinary team research, the proposed research can be carried out only with the full interac- tion and integration of the combined expertise and I^ESTING IN RESEARCH talents of the members of the team. If the proposed research can be conducted by the team members separately, it does not qualify as multidisciplinary team research. Multidisciplinary team research presents a number of conceptual and practical difficulties. Chief among them are issues of leadership, management, coordina- tion, rewards, and satisfaction. Scientific problems and their relation to new research findings-evolve continuously, sometimes rapidly, and keeping up requires good coordination and the ability to change research plans expeditiously, as necessary. In addi-  tion, integrating the work of several researchers, even those with a common plan of study, constitutes a personal, managerial, and leadership challenge to principal investigators; when there are several princi- pal investigators, coordination, discussion, and agree- ment usually take more care and time than when the research is directed by a single principal investigator. Then, too, rewards, advancement, and satisfaction within the profession and within the university envi- ronment, and sometimes within the industrial or gov- emmental environment, have traditionally been based on work done individually, not that done as part of a team. All of these difficulties together constitute a management and leadership challenge for an institu- tion, and resolving the difficulties is essential for the long-term success of multidisciplinary team research. Granting agencies have customarily awarded grants to single investigators within one scientific discipline; thus, the reviewing mechanisms are generally set up on a disciplinary basis. Involving reviewers from several rather different disciplines is considerably more difficult. Reviewers must give careful consid- eration to the composition of the research team; the quality and creativity of the scientific approaches being proposed; the extent of direct working involve- ment by the appropriate individuals, agencies, and institutions; and the ability to manage the project effectively. For the Wanting agency, managing the review of multidisciplinary team grants is exception- ally important. Some of the management issues are discussed in Chapter 6. Notwithstanding the difficulties, multidisciplinary research is clearly worth doing because of the multi- faceted nature ofthe problems both the fundamental and the more applied problems that are common in the agricultural, food, and environmental system. It is also worthwhile because of the unexpected synergism and creativity that good collaboration may generate.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL STRENGTHEN INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RESOURCES The proposed research-strengthening grants have two goals: (1) to help institutions and academic departments develop competitive research programs in areas of research important to their regions and (2) to attract more talented young scientists and engineers into careers in high-priority areas of national need in the agricultural, food, and environmental sciences. Thus, two types of research-strengthening grants would be offered: 1. grants to institutions and academic departments and programs to strengthen the capacity and competi- tiveness of their research in areas significant to their region; and 2. fellowships to broaden and strengthen the hu- man resources in the agricultural, food, and environ- mental system. Grants to institutions, departments, and programs would be for research program development, retrain- ing, and instrumentation (but not for buildings and capital expenditures). These grants would be targeted at institutions that aspire but are currently unable- to develop nationally competitive proposals to submit to federal funding agencies. Many agricultural, food, and environmental issues are unique to certain re- gions; so the whole system land-grant universities, state colleges, and private universities will become stronger and more responsive as a broader array of 41 institutions attain the capacity to compete for grants on a national basis. These grants would thus help over- come the geographic and institutional unevenness in the nation's ability to pursue research and technology development. NSF'sExperimentalProgramtoStimu- late Competitive Research initiative could serve as a good model. In some cases, the need for a research-strengthen- ing grant will be revealed when reviewers identify specific weaknesses or constraints in a grant proposal. A proposal may go unfunded, for example, because investigators either lack access to a certain instrument or research method or have inadequate experience in using it. Or an investigator or research team may not display enough familiarity with related scientific developments or with multidisciplinary research. In such cases, a research-strengthening grant could prove to be appropriate and constructive support. Fellowship support would be for both graduate and postdoctoral research studies. These fellowship ok portunities would supplement, not replace, USDA's successful and nationally competitive higher educa- tion fellowship programs (National Research Coun- cil, 1989c). NOTE 1. In virtually all of the states there are systems of peer review for allocating state and industrial support. Further, some of the SAKS use internal competitive  grants programs to allocate portions of their state and industrial support.

This book provides an analysis of funding for agricultural research in the United States and presents a proposal to strengthen this system. Its premise is that a judicious but substantial increase in research funding through competitive grants is the best way to sustain and strengthen the U.S. agricultural, food, and environmental system. The proposal calls for an increased public investment in research; a broadened scientific scope and expanded program areas of research; and four categories of competitively awarded grants, with an emphasis on multidisciplinary research.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Thesis Proposal Example

Rationale Thesis Proposals Samples For Students

2 samples of this type

If you're seeking an applicable way to streamline writing a Thesis Proposal about Rationale, WowEssays.com paper writing service just might be able to help you out.

For starters, you should browse our extensive catalog of free samples that cover most various Rationale Thesis Proposal topics and showcase the best academic writing practices. Once you feel that you've determined the major principles of content organization and drawn actionable ideas from these expertly written Thesis Proposal samples, putting together your own academic work should go much smoother.

However, you might still find yourself in a situation when even using top-notch Rationale Thesis Proposals doesn't allow you get the job done on time. In that case, you can get in touch with our experts and ask them to craft a unique Rationale paper according to your custom specifications. Buy college research paper or essay now!

Good Education-Prospectus1 Thesis Proposal Example

Preliminary study title:, “credit crisis and the effect on capital structure of dutch smes”: thesis proposal sample.

[First Last Name]

English [Number]

[Date Month Year]

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your thesis proposal done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline